Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Name that fallacy (game)!

Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:15:02 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Alright, so the purpose of this game is to point out the fallacy which the user in the above post uses.

For instance, if I say "President Bush says that there are weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq, thus, we should believe there are weapons of destruction in Iraq", the next user to post has to point out what fallacy that is (and for those who don't know, the above one is "appeal to authority) and then create repeat the process by creating another statement which hinges on a fallacy.

Thus, I shall start.

"Jill: "He'd be a terrible coach for the team."
Bill: "He had his heart set on the job, and it would break if he didn't get it."
Jill: "I guess he'll do an adequate job."


Name it!
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:25:33 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"Jill: "He'd be a terrible coach for the team."
Bill: "He had his heart set on the job, and it would break if he didn't get it."
Jill: "I guess he'll do an adequate job."

Appeal to sympathy?

Here's mine:
"Real Muslims wouldn't fly planes into buildings."
Morty
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 12:30:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 8:25:33 AM, beem0r wrote:
Here's mine:
"Real Muslims wouldn't fly planes into buildings."

No true Scotsman.

Here's one:
John: "The Iraq War is unconstitutional, because my math teacher said so."
Jacob: "That's an appeal to authority, so you are incorrect."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 6:39:41 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
John: "The Iraq War is unconstitutional, because my math teacher said so."
Jacob: "That's an appeal to authority, so you are incorrect."


Argument from fallacy.

Paul: "Mike said they were good to buy."
Sam: "Nah. He's a poor kid, what would he know?"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 10:53:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Paul: "Mike said they were good to buy."
Sam: "Nah. He's a poor kid, what would he know?"

Argumentum ad crumenam

A professional football player has a 40% chance of being able to bench press 400 pounds. A construction worker has a .01% chance of being able to bench 400 pounds. Therefore, if you meet someone benching 400 pounds, he's more likely a professional football player than a construction worker.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2008 10:45:09 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/4/2008 10:53:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A professional football player has a 40% chance of being able to bench press 400 pounds. A construction worker has a .01% chance of being able to bench 400 pounds. Therefore, if you meet someone benching 400 pounds, he's more likely a professional football player than a construction worker.

Illogical use of Statistics.

Joe: God Exists
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2008 1:23:49 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/22/2008 10:45:09 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
Illogical use of Statistics.

Umm. Yes - but that is not specific. It is a Base rate fallacy.

Joe: God Exists

Not really a fallacy as there is no argument - only a statement. Might be considered part of Fallacy of exclusion.

No Republicans are Democrats.
All conservatives are Republicans.
Therefore, no conservatives are democrats.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2008 2:28:14 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/23/2008 1:23:49 AM, Puck wrote:
No Republicans are Democrats.
All conservatives are Republicans.
Therefore, no conservatives are democrats.

The only 'fallacy' that fits here is false premise [for the second premise].
The third statement does in fact logically follow from the first two. I'll number the steps I go through.

"No republicans are democrats"
1. This means that these two groups are mutually exclusive. There are zero people who are both republican and democrat, so we can symbolize this by making two circles that have absolutely no overlap.

"All conservatives are republicans"
2. This means that there is no conservative who is not a republican. Every single conservative is a republican, so we can make another circle that is completely inside the 'republican' circle, which will represent all conservatives.

And we end up with this picture:
http://img185.imageshack.us...

Or using sets,
If conservative is a subset of republican [from premise 2], and republican shares no members with democrat [from premise 1], conservative also has no overlap with democrat [due to not having any members that republican did not have].

Here's mine:
If we don't believe in a religion, we would have to accept that we cease to exist as a mind when we die.
Therefore, religion is true.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2008 3:37:12 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
The only 'fallacy' that fits here is false premise [for the second premise].

Well I was aiming for a 'quaternio terminorum' 4 term fallacy. Democrats/democrats is used as a political party then as the ideology.

Here's mine:
If we don't believe in a religion, we would have to accept that we cease to exist as a mind when we die.
Therefore, religion is true.

Seems like a non sequiter.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2008 5:48:56 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/23/2008 3:37:12 AM, Puck wrote:
Well I was aiming for a 'quaternio terminorum' 4 term fallacy. Democrats/democrats is used as a political party then as the ideology.
I suppose my answer was in haste though. Even if I did catch that they were capitalized differently [which I didn't, tired old me at 4 in the morning], I probably would have assumed it was a typo on your part.

Seems like a non sequiter.

It was supposed to be an appeal to consequences. Belief in no religion leads to bad things, therefore belief in no religion is false.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 4:32:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!

Nope, camon this is an easy one!
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 5:06:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 4:32:32 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!

Nope, camon this is an easy one!

I have no clue what the Latin name for the fallacy is but:

All we know is one red Elephant exists..

Since you have no proof more exists than that one, you cant use the plural elephants.

Also you would need fossil proof to say that a red Elephant existed, unless you happen to shoot the one right in front of you...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 5:12:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 5:06:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:32:32 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!

Nope, camon this is an easy one!

I have no clue what the Latin name for the fallacy is but:

All we know is one red Elephant exists..

Since you have no proof more exists than that one, you cant use the plural elephants.

Also you would need fossil proof to say that a red Elephant existed, unless you happen to shoot the one right in front of you...

I'm almost willing to bet that there will be a falacy in the answer.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 5:19:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Fraud is profitable, and making a profit isn't against the law, so fraud isn't against the law.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 5:36:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 5:19:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Fraud is profitable, and making a profit isn't against the law, so fraud isn't against the law.

Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

* Example

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.


So the exception here is that at times, profits are illegal?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 5:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 5:36:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2011 5:19:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Fraud is profitable, and making a profit isn't against the law, so fraud isn't against the law.

Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

* Example

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.


So the exception here is that at times, profits are illegal?

I don't know what it is called, but profits are not illegal, methods used to make them can be illegal. It's falsely thowing the "innocence" of profits down to the method of profit makeing.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 6:00:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 5:40:52 PM, OreEle wrote:

So the exception here is that at times, profits are illegal?

I don't know what it is called, but profits are not illegal, methods used to make them can be illegal. It's falsely thowing the "innocence" of profits down to the method of profit makeing.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the source for the statement "At times, making a profit is illegal"
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 6:01:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 5:06:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:32:32 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!

Nope, camon this is an easy one!

I have no clue what the Latin name for the fallacy is but:

All we know is one red Elephant exists..

Since you have no proof more exists than that one, you cant use the plural elephants.

Also you would need fossil proof to say that a red Elephant existed, unless you happen to shoot the one right in front of you...

Not what I had in mind but it's a nice, new perspective
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 6:21:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 6:01:36 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 5:06:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:32:32 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!

Nope, camon this is an easy one!

I have no clue what the Latin name for the fallacy is but:

All we know is one red Elephant exists..

Since you have no proof more exists than that one, you cant use the plural elephants.

Also you would need fossil proof to say that a red Elephant existed, unless you happen to shoot the one right in front of you...

Not what I had in mind but it's a nice, new perspective

Well what is the Latin phraseology?
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 10:17:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 6:21:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2011 6:01:36 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 5:06:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:32:32 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:22:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

that would be correct!

Nope, camon this is an easy one!

I have no clue what the Latin name for the fallacy is but:

All we know is one red Elephant exists..

Since you have no proof more exists than that one, you cant use the plural elephants.

Also you would need fossil proof to say that a red Elephant existed, unless you happen to shoot the one right in front of you...

Not what I had in mind but it's a nice, new perspective

Well what is the Latin phraseology?

Not sure but the flaws are:
1. Taking personal experience as a fact in midst of contrary evidence.
2. Can =/= Does.
Eh, it's harder than it looks.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 10:40:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

I've noticed he has been doing that lately.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 6:50:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Spot the fallacy.

At 5/4/2011 10:40:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

I've noticed he has been doing that lately.

Yes, but you like chocolate chip cookies right?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 9:16:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 6:50:42 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Spot the fallacy.

At 5/4/2011 10:40:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

I've noticed he has been doing that lately.

Yes, but you like chocolate chip cookies right?

Non sequiter?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 10:17:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 6:50:42 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Spot the fallacy.

At 5/4/2011 10:40:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

I've noticed he has been doing that lately.

Yes, but you like chocolate chip cookies right?

I love them.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:41:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 10:17:34 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2011 6:50:42 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Spot the fallacy.

At 5/4/2011 10:40:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:17:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/27/2011 4:10:51 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I saw a red, unpainted elephant
Ergo
A red elephant can exist
Ergo
A red elephant existed or red elephants exist

There are about two ;)

Is it the "reviving a two-year-old thread" fallacy?

I've noticed he has been doing that lately.

Yes, but you like chocolate chip cookies right?


I love them.

Fallacy of irrelevance

Okay, check this:
1. I live (now)
2. I will die (future)
3. Suicide is a way to *skip ahead

*"skip ahead" Means to move forward with leaps, for example, I will pass the third grade if I behave but I will skip ahead if I also become an excellent, eager student.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ