The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

The Fallacy Challenge

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,625 times Debate No: 60445
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)




Your mission: try not to commit a single logical fallacy in this entire debate. "Logical fallacies" are defined by this page: can accuse you and make logical fallacies myself, but as long as you prove my accusations to be false and no accusations are true by the end of the debate, you win. However, if you make one single logical fallacy, you lose.
Round one is for acceptance only.

-Unless you forfeit, each round from round 2-5 CON must post at least 50 words per round.
-CON may not have more than 3 of the same words in a row
-CON cannot post spam
-Even if CON only makes an error in the final round, the voters are to decide whether or not he or she made a logical fallacy.


I accept this debate, good luck Pro!

Debate Round No. 1


Let's jump this off with a serious argument...
1. My opponent will more than likely make at least one logical fallacy from round 2 to round 5
It is extremely hard to NOT made a logical fallacy within a debate. There are so many logical fallacies, if you misinterpret, make a logical jump to conclusion, or appeal to authority, nature or emotion, you will be commiting a logical fallacy. In fact, Thett3 pointed out a logical fallacy in his debate even before the opponent started his arguments. [1] This just shows how darn hard it is to NOT make a logical fallacy. Even the acclaimed "Logical-Master" commits fallacies at times, as shown in source [2]. And Logical Master knows his fallacies!

Now, unto my second point: Morgan Freeman has Cotton Candy...

You may try to rebut my first point, but your arguments will stand invalid because Morgan Freeman has cotton candy.
As far as we're concerned, invalid means "(of things) in poor or weakened condition" in this particular situation. [3] Because your argument is weak and poor, it more than likely commited a logical fallacy. Strong arguments don't commit logical fallacies, because if they did all that would be required to take them down is to show how they're wrong.

3. You won't be able to resist the pull of making fallacies
You are probably outraged by now. You probably think "9spaceking is crazy. I'm not gonna fall for that first argument's trick, and the second argument...well, that's just lame and dumb." And you may be right. But you're gonna have to hold it in. You're gonna have to hold it in, regardless. And will you hold it in for your response? Probably. For round 3? Maybe. For round 4? That would be tough, but manageable. But putting up with 5 rounds of terribleness??! Well Envisage, you'll probably get really annoyed at the end. It could last up to 24 days in total, if we each wait 3 days to post our arguments. Even if you post your arguments immediately, I could still stall and make this 12 days. 12 days of you waiting for my argument, sitting in front of the computer, relieved that it's your turn, only to see my "insults", false accusations, and troll arguments. You won't survive long. You'll grow angry and impatient. You'll soon be writing detailed papers in disguise of your own feelings, only to get cracked by me. You'll probably try to use troll arguments as well, only to realize you can't. You may also fall into one of my traps. There's a load of possibilities just waiting out there, and the more I pull and tug, the harder it is to keep your cool. Right now it's only round 2 but trust me, it'll get very very hard. Just wait and see.

4. Everyone will vote for me
Evidence has shown that there are many bad voters on this site. Why? Well, you probably remember that debate between me and Wylted. Yeah, that silly debate concerning the 1-gap. Anyhow, even Wylted himself admits "I only ask good voters for votes, because I'm aware if the inherent bias that comes along with the request when asking weaker voters." [4] This shows that even Wylted wasn't taking the chances that he might accidentally ask a bad voter. And he had the right mind to it. Every good and unbiased voter--Blade of Truth, YYW, Bladerunner, Whiteflame, Ragnar, you name it, they all voted my opponent. (The rightful winner) However, even though I myself believe that I should have lost the debate, I still gained up to a massive 54 points due to the biased voters who voted for me. My opponent of course does not have to be careful if he is the clear winner, however, when things get really darn close and only the debaters can tell who won and who lost, then the bad voters who support the troll ultimately come out. Had it not been for Bladey's last-minute save, Wylted would have unfortunately lost a debate to an only slightly-better-than-average debater. Thus, my opponent needs to hire some really good voters to vote on this. But who will they vote? Will they actually believe that you are the one who made fallacies, and that I won the debate? I lay down many traps and attacks, it will be a tough've got to be careful, whether it's the good voters (who will examine the debate carefully to see if you made an impossible-to-recover logical fallacies), or the bad voters (who will vote for me just because they scanned the debate and didn't seem to see you recover from your fallacies). This strengthens my point about the difficulty level of this debate, and thus, you are in the danger zone...

you will have to get out of it somehow and prove that you won't make a logical fallacy...while still refuting my points.

Good luck on your round, and don't make any logical fallacies! ;)



Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

I am already regretting signing up to 4 rounds of torture, haha. I will make my positive arguments in this round and save most of my rebuttals for R3.

A1. I have a grounding in basic logic

Most of my arguments in my debates follow deductively, which demonstrates my experience with these types of debates, if one checks through my debate record on this account they will find a vanishingly small number of logical fallacies committed on my behalf.[1] A good example is in my two debates debate with Wylted, which was entirely deductive, and Wylted despite being a highly experienced debater failed to call a single logical fallacy on my part in any of these arguments.[2,3]

Another good example is my debate with Toviyah, a debater who uses enormous amounts of formal logic in his debates, and yet he failed to call out a single logical fallacy in our debate. [4] This is before we even consider if the logical fallacy claims are valid or not! If I consistently avoid committing logical fallacies in my previous debates then we have good reason to expect inductively that I will largely avoid them in this debate.

To formalize:

P1. I will probably not make any logical fallacies in any debate

P2. This is a debate

P3. This is all that is known on the matter

C. I will probably not make any logical fallacies in this debate

I have already defended P1, and P2 is prima facie true. P3 is an assumption which also seems reasonable, there is nothing that seems apparent to affect the likelihood of me making additional fallacies given the current information. If Pro can provide reasons to doubt the significance of P3, then this argument is of course, unsound.

A2. Pro is unlikely to spot fallacies even if they were made

By analysing Pro’s 3 most recent debate’s opening rounds, it is clear he has missed many logical fallacies made by his opponent, such as the fallacy of ‘Bare Assertion’ in his debate with Brant.Merrel [5], and also in YYW’s opening arguments on Justin Beiber with the following argument:

“JB has inflicted his horrible music on us, and apparently has no intention of stopping. This is awful, and I don't contest that a thorough round of public shaming and humiliation is in order -especially for what he said about Bill Clinton. “[6]

With absolutely no logical or evidential justification given, yet my distinguished opponent missed this elementary error in his rebuttals.

A3. Reducio ad hitlerum

Interestingly reducio ad hitlerum is not listed on so I will use it!

P1. Pro’s false arguments are similar to Hitler’s propaganda

P2. Hitler’s propaganda loses

C. Pro’s arguments appear to lose

To support P1, Pro cites numerous prima facie irrelevancies and falsities in his opening round that appear to only be meaningful to people who already believe the conclusion, which is the definition of propaganda, and P2 is the definition of redicio ad hitlerum.


Pro’s arguments have been debunked, and I would be interested to see where my fallacies are.









Debate Round No. 2


My opponent makes very interesting contentions. I was half-expecting him to fall for the "trap" imposed in round one and find a clever loophole just to troll me. But--never mind that--onto the real arguments.

A1. Envisage has grounding in basic logic
Your debates example makes the Genetic fallacy. [1] You judged your own logic based on yourself. Who knows if this is true or not? Maybe they went easy on you. They could have also have personal bias for you. We just don't know.

A2. I'm unlikely to spot fallacies
Once again you have made the Genetic fallacy. Just because Brant.Merrel didn't spot a fallacy, that does not mean I won't spot a fallacy.

A3. Reducio ad hitlerum
My opponent makes a very interesting argument using a logical fallacy NOT listed on my website.

However, my opponent makes multiple mistakes here.
1. He commits the ad hominem fallacy. [2] He compares me to Hitler in an attempt to shoot me down.
2. He commits the no true scotman fallacy. [3] He appeals to "purity", because Hitler is so goddarn impure that seemingly nothing is right about him, including his propaganda, and he applies Hitler to be like me and because I'm so darn impure my arguments appear to lose.
In addition, just because my arguments are similar to Hitler's propaganda, this does not mean my argument will lose. Not only that, my arguments are nowhere even similar to Hitler's propaganda. There's no way Hitler used any internet memes about Morgan Freeman having cottencandy. He also in no way talked about logical fallacies made by Envisage. He also may be mean and malicious, but he's not sly. I made an excellent point in the previous round that I can insult and offend Envisage while accusing him falsely, and none of the conduct deductions will matter, since everyone is judging by "choose winner" option. Therefore even though it is a very unfair tactic, people will have no choice to vote for me if I prove Envisage making a fallacy.
In addition, Hitler makes a fallacy in his propaganda by appealing to emotions.

On the other hand I make appeals to probability as well as the pull of being unable to make fallacies. Hitler may have a mean face and a mean motto, but one sentence cannot do more than what 8,000 characters can do. Probability=/= emotions. Therefore my arguments aren't similar to Hitler's propaganda as Envisage's.

In conclusion:
-Envisage has to somehow rebut to my contentions in which he commited the genetic fallacy twice
-Envisage's Hitler argument backfired upon him and gave him a few accusations of fallacies which he has to rebut
-Envisage's arguments are weak and doubtable because Morgan Freeman still has cotton candy



Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

Voters, forgive us, for what we are doing.

II. Morgan Freeman

Pro makes the following argument in his opening round:

P1) ???
P2) Morgan Freeman has cotton candy

C) Your argument is invalid

As you can clearly see, the conclusion doesn’t immediately deductively follow from the minor premise given. I will agree that P2 is true, Morgan Freeman indeed was holding cotton candy. But additional reasons are required to get to the conclusion.[1]

If Pro was going for a modus ponens then we can easily fill in the missing premise, or a very close approximation:

P1) If Morgan Freeman holds cotton candy, THEN your argument is invalid

P2) Morgan Freeman is holding cotton candy

C) You argument is invalid

For a BARBARA syllogism, the missing premise would be “Everytime Morgan Freeman holds cotton candy, your argument is invalid”

In either case, support for the missing premise is absent from Pro’s opening round, and hence should be treated as a bare assertion fallacy until he has done so.

III. “I won't be able to resist the pull of making fallacies”

I am not sure I fully understand Pro’s argument here, he seems to assert that 24 days of debate time is going to make me angry and impatient, and hence make a fallacy, or fall into a trap. This is yet another bare assertion fallacy by Pro, given he has provided zero evidential support for that statement being true.[2]

Is there a significant relationship between debate length (timewise) and the number of fallacies, or likelihood of fallacies? I can’t say I know, but the burden of proof is on the proposition to justify this.

IV. Everyone will vote for me

Again, I am not sure what the argument is here. If we assume that I have knowledge that everyone will vote for Pro, how does this translate to me being more likely to commit logical fallacies?

P1) If the debate is difficult, I am more likely to use fallacies

P2) The debate is difficult

C) I am more likely to use fallacies

Even if we assume P2 is true, I see no reason to accept P1. If the use of logical fallacies is going to make me more likely to lose (as per the rules of this debate), then it follows that I am going to avoid using them at all costs as the difficulty level increases since I know my opponent and voters will easily spot them.

My opponent makes very interesting contentions. I was half-expecting him to fall for the "trap" imposed in round one and find a clever loophole just to troll me. But--never mind that--onto the real arguments.

V. Counter Rebuttals

Pro accuses me of committing logical fallacies in 4 different points. I will deal with them in order.

1. “Envisage has grounding in basic logic” -Genetic fallacy.

First let’s find the definition of a genetic fallacy as per

“You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.”

To relate this to my “grounding in basic logic”, the only way it can apply is if I am making the case my arguments are valid on the virtue that I said them (with the assumption I am a logical debater).

However my claims were empirical claims, and not made by virtue that I gave them my own endorsement. I presented my debate record and highlighted significant instances where if logical fallacies were common on my behalf, that they would have been detected (and they were not) by the likes of Wylted or Toviyah.

2. “I'm unlikely to spot fallacies”

Pro also claims a genetic fallacy, but the genetic fallacy only applies to the arguments themselves, and not specific claims within the arguments. I made the claim that Pro is unlikely to spot fallacies, but the only way that could be a genetic fallacy is if I endorsed the validity and soundness of the argument because of the origins of the argument (say for example, Chuck Norris made the argument that Pro is unlikely to spot fallacies, and Chuck Norris is virtually a god, therefore the argument must be valid and sound).

3. “Reducio ad hitlerum”

Pro makes two fallacy claims:

“He commits the ad hominem fallacy. He compares me to Hitler in an attempt to shoot me down. “

“He commits the no true scotman fallacy. He appeals to "purity", because Hitler is so goddarn impure that seemingly nothing is right about him, including his propaganda, and he applies Hitler to be like me and because I'm so darn impure my arguments appear to lose. “

To dismiss the first claim, note that I gave my argument in a syllogism, recall from my first round:

P1. Pro’s false arguments are similar to Hitler’s propaganda

P2. Hitler’s propaganda loses

C. Pro’s arguments appear to lose

Note that I am attacking the ARGUMENTS directly, and not the source of the arguments, which by definition is the only way it can be ad homenum. Ergo the claim fails.

To dismiss the second claim… I will give the definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy:

“In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.”[3]

Note this fallacy only applies to categorical claims, and my claim was a propositional one. A correct version of this fallacy is to for example, have Pro present an example of Hitler’s propaganda that ‘wins’, and my in turn replying ‘Well no TRUE Hitler’s propaganda wins’

I emplore Pro to show where this fallacy was specifically made by me.

VI. Summary

Only 2 rounds to go, thank God.

VII. References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent attacks my troll argument quite well. That is why I have a plan.

This is what I'm trying to say:

P1) If M.F. has cotton candy, then your argument, your argument is invalid
P2) Morgan Freeman has cotton candy

C) Your argument is invalid

Why does M.F. having cotton candy make your argument invalid? Because cotton candy is such sweet and tasty you can't make any arguments, you're too bribed. Even if the cotton candy has no effect it distracts you enough for Morgan Freeman to knock you unconscious, making your arguments invalid. Thus, I have resupported the crazy internet meme and made my argument valid while your arguments are still invalid.

Resiting pulls of arguments
There is a pretty big big relationship between debate length (rounds wise) and the number of fallacies. It's like Murphy's laws says: if something (bad) has even the least possibility of happening, it will eventually happen. [1]


Voting for me
If you know everyone will vote for pro, you are more likely to just give up already since fighting is futile.

1st genetic fallacy--hmmm...interesting....but I was talking about the likes of your sources being from Wylted or Toviyah. I'm trying to say that if you say "Wylted could not spot a single logical fallacy in my debate, thus 9space has the near-impossible task of spotting a logical fallacy", this has the genetic fallacy.

2cd genetic fallacy-- I see.

Reducio ad hitlerum's fallacies--
Ad hominem--however, if you compare my arguments to Hitler's propaganda, you're definitely insulting me. If I said "Your insults are similar to Izbo's, therefore you'll get banned off the site", it's basically saying you act like Izbo and that statement is very insulting, as well as commiting the ad hominem fallacy.

No true scotman--The fallacy Envisage made in the previous round(s) is because he wrongly compared my arguments to Hitler's propaganda. I proved my arguments depend on different kinds of persuasion than Hitler's, thus my opponent moved the goal-posts, was wrong, and commited the No-true-scotman fallacy. Wait, no, I think what Envisage commited was more like the Special Pleading fallacy rather than no-true-scotman, since Envisage moved the goalposts. [2]


Anyhow, here's how the arguments go:
Me: Because blah blah blah, my opponent will make logical fallacies.
Envisage: 9space's arguments are like Hitler's propaganda, and since Hitler's propaganda failed, 9space's argument failed.
Me: My argumenta aren't like Hitler's propaganda, since I use different appeals rather than Hitler.
Envisage: That's not the "no-true-scotman fallacy".

You see, since Envisage completely changed to talking about the no-true-scotman fallacy rather than actually facing on my arguments (and pointing out exactly why my arguments are similar to Hiler's propaganda), he definitely moved the goalposts and commited the special pleading fallacy.

Let's see what you have to say for yourself, Envisage.


I. Preface
Interesting arguments Pro, very interesting.

II. Postponement
In accordance with Murphy's law, I see that it might be most productive of my rounds to keep the round short. As such I hand the round back to Pro for the final round!

III. Conclusion
My opponents arguments hardly need addressing, as such I will save refutations for the last round.

IV. References
1. None
Debate Round No. 4


Envisage is incredibly, incredibly smart. Yet I have saved up my final attack just in case this happened--no arguments, nothing, nada. Ya, I'll just treat this round as if Envisage forfeited the last round. You see, I half-expected Envisage to find the loophole within my rules.... "Unless you forfeit, each round from round 2-5 CON must post at least 50 words per round." Therefore technically con could forfeit each round and seem to win....until I slap on my death-shot card: "You fell into my trap." What trap is this?
Let's say Envisage ff'd the last round, since he provided zero arguments.

So now what? What fallacies had he commited?
He commited a load of fallacies.

"Envisage forfeited this round."
Straw-man. [1] He misinterpreted my argument. He provided arguments completely irrelevant to my case to support his case.

"Envisage forfeited this round."
Texas-sharpshooter. [2] He gives one example of himself not making a fallacy within one round by forfeiting a round, hinting that he won't make a fallacy any other rounds. But who knows? Maybe he won't forfeit the other rounds. One round forfeited does not mean all rounds forfeited.

"Envisage forfeited this round."
Appeal to authority. [3] He appeals to himself as the authority. But he is not the only one in control of the debate, I'm the one making the arguments and having the BoP. He has to disprove my arguments. Making his own arguments will help a little bit but it won't mean he will ultimately win the debate just because he forfeited a round.

"Envisage forfeited this round."
Anecdotal fallacy. [4] Envisage used his personal experience of forfeiting that specific round to contribute to implying that he will not make a fallacy. So? He forfeited a round, that doesn't mean he didn't make a logical fallacy within the debate. It is irrelevant.

"Envisage forfeited this round."
Ad-hominem. [5] By forfeiting the previous round Envisage hints that I'm not worth debating for that round. He hints that, despite my efforts, he can simply just forfeit and still gain back footage in the next round because I'm too bad compared to him and that he's much much more skilled than me.






Thanks Pro!

  1. I. Preface

I thank Pro for this semi-serious semi-troll semi-amusement debate. I hated every round of it, haha. I will tie this round off by affirming my arguments and negating any alleged logical fallacies.

  1. II. Pro’s final round fallacy claims

Pro makes several fallacy claims against my this round based on my lack of argumentation in the previous round, however these can be dismissed out of hand, because logical fallacies deal with arguments themselves, and in the absence of arguments a fallacy simply cannot be made. It’s like claiming a football team won a match that was never played.

It’s logically absurd.

Morgan Freeman has candy

Note that Pro has given no reasons to believe the critical premise of his “killer” argument:

“If M.F. has cotton candy, then your argument, your argument is invalid”

There simply is no logical progression from the taste of cotton candy, it’s sweetness or the fact Morgan Freeman is holding it to the validity of my arguments. Pro’s only useful point was that it would knock me unconscious and hence make my arguments invalid. But how does my being unconscious make my arguments invalid?

Unconsciousness only means I am no longer aware of the outside world, it doesn’t mean my reasoning faculties are inactive. I must say I have dreamed many a good idea in my slumber, and I am sure many voters have too!

  1. III. Murphy’s Law

I concede that Murphy’s Law is valid, however the conclusion assumes an infinite length of time. If I was giving argument ad infinitum, then it is a certainty that I will make at least one fallacy, however this debate is only 4 argument rounds long, and I have already used a clever loophole to circumvent the need to argue one of the rounds.

Why is it a clever loophole?

Because Pro affirmed Murphy’s Law! And him criticising me for not giving full arguments last round would be to indirectly undermine his own argument (that I would eventually make a fallacy), so either he allows me to progress through Round 4 with minimal arguments, or he criticises it and undermines his Murphy’s Law argument. Either were bad for Pro.

  1. IV. Other Fallacy Claims

Pro reaffirms his first genetic fallacy claim with the following:

“I'm trying to say that if you say "Wylted could not spot a single logical fallacy in my debate, thus 9space has the near-impossible task of spotting a logical fallacy", this has the genetic fallacy. “

Well this is a strawman, as I never made such an argument, I only asserted that Wylted and Toviyah are likely to spot logical fallacies if I made them, and they did now. I gave the argument as probabilistic. It is possible that they did miss them, but considering their debate and argumentation styles, for which I gave evidential support, it seems unlikely. I highlighted specific examples for voters to see for themselves at their own leisure and I gave more than one.

Pro continues to affirm my alleged fallacies in my reducio ad hitlerum argument, and seems to misunderstand what ad homenum actually means, which specifically is the attack of the argument’s author, or source rather than the argument itself. It might be the case that it logically follows that Pro is a bad person (I don’t think it does), but that’s not what the argument is demonstrating.[1]

I am attacking his argument and not the person in my efforts to invalidate it.

Moreover special pleading =/= ‘moving the goalposts’, they are completely different categories of logical fallacies, and neither are formal fallacies. Pro has merely asserted I have moved the goalposts, when it was he was changed the topic himself, lol. Misunderstanding the fallacy and me pointing out it is not said fallacy is not equivalent to me committing the said fallacy.

Note that Pro is the one who originally brought up special pleading, hence the only person who could have ‘moved the goalposts’ is Pro himself!

  1. V. Conclusion

No fallacies have been committed on my behalf, despite Pro’s bizarre attempts to prove as much. And I am so glad this debate is over. Kill me now.

  1. VI. References.

  1. 1.

Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
yup...its tied. :D
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
thx. I tried. :D
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
GG 9space, well played.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
RFD: I cried, I tried to kick myself in the head, I tried to erase my computer but to no avail this debate stuck with me.

This was extremely difficult task for Con and I applaud you for taking on the debate. Essentially Pro could do anything, and you had to rebut all this without commuting a fallacy and as such you opened yourself up for a a lot of difficult wording and argumentation.

In essence it is my position as a voter to decide if Pro committed a fallacy that Con has pointed out. All in all I thought most of Pros claims of fallacy were unproved, however I did think the genetic fallacy raised an appropriate argument when we consider the citation used. As this is the citation given in the rules of the debate I have consider this definition and determine if Con did in fact commit this fallacy.

This fallacy is probably one of the hardest to tease apart, as technically Pro could label anything where you mention a specific person a genetic fallacy. At this point, I am leaning towards giving Pro argument points as he rightfully points out that "they may have had personal bias, we just dont know". In response, Con says "the only way it can apply is if I am making the case my arguments are valid on the virtue that I said them" However this is not correct as the source can be any person "You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.". As such at this point I have to give Pro the debate points as he pointed out this genetic fallacy.

I feel like crying now, so excuse me.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
I unfortunately cannot give a vote on this debate. Regardless of how entertained I was from start to finish. I once thought about taking a debate similar to this...Thank you Envi for showing me I would most likely kill myself if I attempted this. (I do not have the patience you clearly do).

I give the SLIGHTEST edge to 9space. (unfortunately not enough to vote though) for the ad hominem.

Con: "P1. Pro"s false arguments are similar to Hitler"s propaganda"

It is: PRO'S false argument is similar (=) HITLER'S propaganda.

This leads me to believe he is calling the argument propaganda while comparing the author of the argument(or propaganda) similar to Hitler.

Again this is the slightest of margins of my opinion in this debate. Perhaps someone will feel strongly about this fallacy and give a vote.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
you just read: the fallacy challenge
Posted by Domr 3 years ago

What did I just read!?
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not successfully show that con committed a logical fallacy... @DDD: this might have felt sort of like a troll debate, but there was a clear resolution here, and pro did not affirm it.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: You're both tied because I laughed my arse off for both of these. I have no idea how to judge this but for your effort and hard work- I'm leaving this tied. Good job!