• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

Logical Fallacies

Saz Chan >^-^<

Saz Chan >^-^<

I have always loved debating, ever since I was small. When I was 13, I participated in a publicly moderated debate with an adult on the ethics of abortion. I have always had very logical intuitions, and can smell a bad argument a mile away. Often I just know that an argument is unsound, even if it takes me a moment of reflection to figure out what the problem is.

As such, it has always made me frustrated when people commit very basic fallacies (or even more subtle ones), as it means I have to take time to explain things that are instantly obvious to me by intuition. Many of these fallacies are named, and are relatively well-known, like the No True Scotsman fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation, or begging the question.

Does anyone else who is philosophically inclined get frustrated when they encounter logical fallacies that seem obvious to everyone except you? Do you resent having to explain them? What fallacies do you encounter? I can perhaps make a list of them.

One I encounter often is people misunderstanding a reductio ad absurdum. Roughly, a reductio is where you concede hypothetically something that your opponent is arguing for, and then show them how it leads to logical absurdity. But what many people do is mistakenly think that I actually believe the premise that I am conceding only hypothetically. Has anyone else experienced this?

P.S. if I come across as intellectually arrogant, it's probably because I am.

List of fallacies:
Myzozoa: Category error + straw man
gvmgvm40: Nirvana fallacy
Josh: ad populum
Soul Fly: tu quoque
Captain Clefairy: post hoc ergo propter hoc

Damn son, that's a lotta Latin !
 
Last edited:
King UU said:
haha this reminds of of a post I made once because this one user was really upsetting me because, for whatever reason, they didn't comprehend how our tiering policies worked. Let me find this post, one second.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tiering-policy.3588734/#post-7119100

background: I have a philosophy degree, I specialized in feminist epistemology and ethical considerations of epistemic knowledges.

Oh, cool! I study philosophy also, at Cambridge. I enjoy epistemology and metaphysics the most. Where did you study?
 
My anti-favourite one is the so-called Gish Gallop. Not sure if it really fits the definition of a fallacy, but in short it just means to spew as much bullshit as possible during the allotted time, where every sub-point would take ten times as long to soundly refute. You encounter it online all the time, especially when confronting conspiracy theories. What can you reply, but: "I know exactly how to refute every single point you just listed, but it would take me five hours, and you'd just make another list just like it as soon as I'm finished"?
 
Codraroll said:
My anti-favourite one is the so-called Gish Gallop. Not sure if it really fits the definition of a fallacy, but in short it just means to spew as much bullshit as possible during the allotted time, where every sub-point would take ten times as long to soundly refute. You encounter it online all the time, especially when confronting conspiracy theories. What can you reply, but: "I know exactly how to refute every single point you just listed, but it would take me five hours, and you'd just make another list just like it as soon as I'm finished"?

You're right, this one isn't a fallacy as such, since it is not strictly an error in logic. But yes, it's very annoying, and a dirty tactic in timed debates. One can only hope that the gish-galloping is not lost on attentive and fair-minded audiences. I have also heard this called "scatter-gunning".
 
Esteemed SPL Host Ginku said:
my fav is the one where people pretend they have won an argument because the other person committed a logical fallacy

Lol yes, that is a good one. Just because an argument has been shown to be unsound does not entail that the conclusion is false. All it entails is that the conclusion is insufficiently established by the premises.
 
Saz Chan >^-^< said:
I have always loved debating, ever since I was small. When I was 13, I participated in a publicly moderated debate with an adult on the ethics of abortion. I have always had very logical intuitions, and can smell a bad argument a mile away. Often I just know that an argument is unsound, even if it takes me a moment of reflection to figure out what the problem is.

As such, it has always made me frustrated when people commit very basic fallacies (or even more subtle ones), as it means I have to take time to explain things that are instantly obvious to me by intuition.

Out of curiosity, is there an example of a logically poor argument you heard during that debate?
 
sunny004 said:
Out of curiosity, is there an example of a logically poor argument you heard during that debate?

Oh yes, there were a fair old few.

Her main argument was to draw an analogy between a mother's decision to terminate her pregnancy, and a family's decision to pull the plug on a family member who was in a permanently vegetative state. Since the family have a right to end this person's life, a woman should be able to do this to her unborn baby also, since the fetus, like the comatose person, lacks consciousness and is completely dependent upon others to survive. The problem with this, of course, is the poverty of the analogy. If you re-work the analogy, but this time the comatose family member is only temporarily unconscious, rather than permanently so, then it is not at all clear that the family have the right to pull the plug. The person in question may well be completely vegetative, but if the doctor predicts them to make a full recovery, or even a partial one, then it seems that the decision to end the person's life does not pass to the family, since not all hope is gone. That being the case, it appears that the morally significant factor is not so much the non-sentience of the person, but the permanence (or lack thereof) of the non-sentience. A pregnancy, in which a child will eventually be born, is more closely analogous to the case of the temporary vegetative state, rather than the permanent one: therefore, it is more closely analogous to the case in which ending the person's life is not justified.

I don't know that this conforms to any kind of formal fallacy. The problem really was just that the analogy had a problem and that, if the analogy is fixed to match abortion more closely, then it actually yields the conclusion that abortion is not justified.

There were a lot more, as it was a three-hour debate, but that one was probably the most original and the only one for which I had to think on my dainty feet.
 
you seem like that kid who calls people out for saying double negatives

I have always had very logical intuitions
Often I just know that an argument is unsound
As such, it has always made me frustrated when people commit very basic fallacies (or even more subtle ones), as it means I have to take time to explain things that are instantly obvious to me by intuition.
like, seriously, check your ego. maybe its just how you wrote it but lines like those are not points in your favors. "P.S. if I come across as intellectually arrogant, it's probably because I am." sounds like what a grade 6 nerd would say to his parents. arrogance is not healthy. here's a pointer: if you are the only one seeing something and the rest of the room of people disagrees with you, you are probably in the wrong, and even if you are in the right it is clearly not obvious if nobody else picked up on it so it is not fair to act like people are stupid.



you don't win a debate by being right - you win a debate by convincing others you're right.
 
Last edited:
What's so difficult about "explaining" to people it's a logical fallacy?
Why do you have to explain?
Just name the said fallacy and let people google it.

E.g. "That's a strawman fallacy".
And you just don't have to explain anything, you know?

If someone joins a debate without a basic knowledge on common fallacies, it's probably their fault.
If people make a very "basic" fallacy, then it's not a good debate to start with.
But I have a feeling that by "basic", you mean something very difficult, lol.

My advice for you is to take a proper course on logic, so that you can know the names of the fallacies, and learn the proper way of how to disprove people logically.


Lastly, people of different personalities debate in different styles.
Some people of certain personalities are more focused on facts and figures, compared to debunking someone else's logic.
You can't just debunk someone's logic and suppose you have won.
If you haven't been presenting facts and figures that support your views, there's something lacking in your debating skills.
 
Last edited:
Josh said:
you seem like that kid who calls people out for saying double negatives




like, seriously, check your ego. maybe its just how you wrote it but lines like those are not points in your favors. "P.S. if I come across as intellectually arrogant, it's probably because I am." sounds like what a grade 6 nerd would say to his parents. arrogance is not healthy.

I am sorry if my manner scandalises you. It is just the way I am, and the way I always have been.

Josh said:
here's a pointer: if you are the only one seeing something and the rest of the room of people disagrees with you, you are probably in the wrong

This is actually an ad populum fallacy. I'll be sure to add it to the list in due course.

Josh said:
and even if you are in the right it is clearly not obvious if nobody else picked up on it so it is not fair to act like people are stupid.

But it is obvious, at least to me. And that is the point.

Josh said:
you don't win a debate by being right - you win a debate by convincing others you're right.

You are absolutely correct on this: people are more persuaded by rhetoric than by sound arguments. But this seems to contradict what you just said. If people are, as you claim, not stupid, then shouldn't the person with the more sound arguments win rather than the skilled rhetorician?
 
Cresselia~~ said:
What's so difficult about "explaining" to people it's a logical fallacy?
Why do you have to explain?
Just name the said fallacy and let people google it.

E.g. "That's a strawman fallacy".
And you just don't have to explain anything, you know?

If someone joins a debate without a basic knowledge on common fallacies, it's probably their fault.
If people make a very "basic" fallacy, then it's not a good debate to start with.
But I have a feeling that by "basic", you mean something very difficult, lol.

My advice for you is to take a proper course on logic, so that you can know the names of the fallacies, and learn the proper way of how to disprove people logically.


Lastly, people of different personalities debate in different styles.
Some people of certain personalities are more focused on facts and figures, compared to debunking someone else's logic.
You can't just debunk someone's logic and suppose you have won.
If you haven't been presenting facts and figures that support your views, there's something lacking in your debating skills.

I do explain them, it is just annoying that I have to do so. Perhaps if formal logic were more commonly taught in schools, then this wouldn't be necessary.

Another problem is that not all fallacies are named. And not all named fallacies can be taught in introductory logic courses. There are far more productive things to teach over a semester.

And even if you do name the fallacy - like, "that's a strawman" - this doesn't do any good if you are "on the hoof", so to speak, and you might have to make an important point then and there.

Thank you for your advice. I actually study philosophy at UK's top university, and I won the prize for "most outstanding student in philosophical logic" last year. I got £100 for it, which I spent on a Breakfast Master. It makes toast, eggs and bacon all at the same time. It's awesome.

It has never been my claim that not committing logical fallacies is sufficient for performing well in a debate. Only that it is necessary. And by "performing well", I don't mean persuading the most people, since people are often persuaded by silly things. But for arguing well, objectively, obviously your arguments shouldn't be fallacious.
 
Saz Chan >^-^< said:
I do explain them, it is just annoying that I have to do so. Perhaps if formal logic were more commonly taught in schools, then this wouldn't be necessary.

Another problem is that not all fallacies are named. And not all named fallacies can be taught in introductory logic courses. There are far more productive things to teach over a semester.

And even if you do name the fallacy - like, "that's a strawman" - this doesn't do any good if you are "on the hoof", so to speak, and you might have to make an important point then and there.

Thank you for your advice. I actually study philosophy at UK's top university, and I won the prize for "most outstanding student in philosophical logic" last year. I got £100 for it, which I spent on a Breakfast Master. It makes toast, eggs and bacon all at the same time. It's awesome.

It has never been my claim that not committing logical fallacies is sufficient for performing well in a debate. Only that it is necessary. And by "performing well", I don't mean persuading the most people, since people are often persuaded by silly things. But for arguing well, objectively, obviously your arguments shouldn't be fallacious.
Then just don't explain. What's the point. lol.

Saz Chan >^-^< said:
I am sorry if my manner scandalises you. It is just the way I am, and the way I always have been.



?
Cambridge, huh...

My opinion is, in the UK, the teachers and the education system tends to inflate a person's ego a lot, especially when they were above average or something.
I've always been quite average in Hong Kong, but once I started living in the UK, I started getting scholarships, offers for academic acceleration, won like awards every year or so, and so on.
And every teacher seems to want me to believe that I'm better than everyone else, something like that, even when I feel that I'm only slightly above average.

A lot of people from Hong Kong feel that people who study in the UK have superiority problems.

But in reality, once you get into university, you should start to realise everyone else is around the same level as you are, and you are just one of many many.
It may be difficult to you since you have won an award, but keep in mind that you didn't win every single award in Cambridge.
And once you've started working, you'll realise, that social skills is way more important than being intelligent.


You know, in my book, someone who's truly intelligent, is someone like this:
http://www.ejinsight.com/20170113-hk-born-maths-prodigy-named-ucla-professor-at-18/

What I mean is, if you aren't intelligent to be on the news, you are probably just one of many many.
 
Cresselia~~ said:
Then just don't explain. What's the point. lol.


Cambridge, huh...

My opinion is, in the UK, the teachers and the education system tends to inflate a person's ego a lot, especially when they were above average or something.
I've always been quite average in Hong Kong, but once I started living in the UK, I started getting scholarships, offers for academic acceleration, won like awards every year or so, and so on.
And every teacher seems to want me to believe that I'm better than everyone else, something like that, even when I feel that I'm only slightly above average.

A lot of people from Hong Kong feel that people who study in the UK have superiority problems.

But in reality, once you get into university, you should start to realise everyone else is around the same level as you are, and you are just one of many many.
It may be difficult to you since you have won an award, but keep in mind that you didn't win every single award in Cambridge.
And once you've started working, you'll realise, that social skills is way more important than being intelligent.


You know, in my book, someone who's truly intelligent, is someone like this:
http://www.ejinsight.com/20170113-hk-born-maths-prodigy-named-ucla-professor-at-18/

What I mean is, if you aren't intelligent to be on the news, you are probably just one of many many.

Well, the point in explaining is to educate people, and to win people over. This is especially important on political issues, which may well influence law or government policy. There are lots of social issues on which most people are, in my own humble opinion, wrong. It is also concerning that many of these issues are "buzz" topics, on which it is politically incorrect to have a dissenting opinion, even here on Smogon forums. So it is just as important now as ever that there be forums available to discuss these things in a fair manner. But if people are more inclined to believe arguments that sound good as opposed to arguments that are good, then this will not happen.

You really can't paint the whole of the UK with so broad a brush. Mathematical prodigies go to Oxbridge too. They just don't make them professors at 18, as well they shouldn't. Cambridge is also generally a much more humble place than Oxford and Edinburgh.

I think you are just comparing apples with oranges. We are talking about philosophy, after all, and not mathematics. A lot of the world's greatest minds are actually very poor philosophers. Stephen Hawking has a mind that is head-and-shoulders above most, and yet can't string a decent argument together, no matter now much technological assistance he has.

I would really rather not make this about me - lots of people seem to be keen to, for some reason. I'd like to make this about specific errors in argument that people have experienced.
 
Cresselia - have you tried actually knowing what you're talking about before weighing in?

Let's take these in order:

1. Of course you have to explain the fallacy! Most people don't know the correct Latin names of all the logical fallacies, and some of them don't even have names. For example, if you insulted me during a debate, it would absolutely be insufficient for me to just say 'that's an ad homenim' and move on. People aren't going to know what I'm talking about! It's far more convincing to counter with something like 'You're attempting to win this debate by attacking my character, rather than position, and my character has no relevance on whether or not my view is correct.' In other hypothetical situations, taking the time to actually explain why something is a logical fallacy can also help prevent you from making the logical fallacy that Ginku mentioned above: ie, the one that says 'Your argument is based in a logical fallacy, and is therefore rendered completely invalid'.

You go on to say, quote, 'You can't just debunk someone's logic and suppose you have won.' - but that's exactly what you're suggesting the OP does by naming a logical fallacy and not explaining. This is hypocrisy, in case I haven't made it clear enough.

2. 'My advice for you is to take a proper course on logic, so that you can know the names of the fallacies, and learn the proper way of how to disprove people logically.' It's already clear from the mess you've made of the first post, let alone your follow ups, that you yourself haven't taken a 'proper course in logic' - or at the very least, haven't learned anything from it. Despite this, you recommend that the OP, who already stated that they're studying philosophy at Cambridge, should do what you yourself haven't. Again, blatant hypocrisy.

3. I'm not sure why you've associated 'personality' with 'debating style'. Do you have any 'facts and figures' that back up this view point?

Further, I'm not sure why you've deemed 'figures' a necessary component of a competent debating style. While I agree that logical arguments must be based in fact, bringing up statistics seems irrelevant in a debate about, for example, abortion.

4. Your vast generalisation about the entirety of the UK and Hong Kong education systems is based on anecdotal evidence. Worse, it's your own anecdotal evidence, making subject to your own confirmation (and other) bias(es). Unless you happen to be a qualified expert of both of these topics, your one (emphasis: one) opinion is not even close to enough evidence to back up such a statement. In fact, even if you are an expert on both of those topics, I would still require several independent sources before beginning to trust this kind of information.

Further, your experience does not necessarily reflect the OP's experience. You have no where near enough evidence to determine whether or not the OP is 'just one of many many', or if the award they received actually does indicate some kind of unusual talent for the field they're studying.

5. You've very suddenly, and without a particular reason, decided to belittle the OP. Your post seems to convey the underlying message of 'you're not as smart as you think you are', despite the fact that you are in no position to determine how intelligent the OP is or isn't, and - given that fact that we know you didn't read the OP itself from the fact you didn't know about their university study - can't even have known whether or not the OP claimed to be extra intelligent. Further, despite the fact that you begin that post with 'Cambridge, huh...', you continue on to say 'once you get to university' implying that the OP's university experience isn't as valid as your own, which is frankly narcissistic (not to mention unsubstantiated).

6. Your definition of intelligence is frankly irrelevant, considering that what actually constitutes intelligence is still up for debate among prominent psychologists who've dedicated their careers to understanding more about that very specific part of the of the human mind (I definitely remember reading about different interpretations of intelligence in a study, I can make an effort to go find it again if you're particularly interested in proof of that statement). Further, relying on mainstream media to determine intelligence, of all places, reeks of an inability to form your own opinions, and given the article you cite displays a complete lack of understanding concerning the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

Frankly, I found the combination of your posts to overvalue your own opinion, which would be cause enough for concern, but is compounded by the fact that your opinion isn't internally consistent and lacks prior knowledge of the subject matter.

Ok, think I got that out of my system.

Edit: I would also like to make it very clear that I have no formal training in terms of logical debate. My experience comes purely from school debating, and from exploring content, especially podcasts, related to the logical discussion of scientific and pseudo-scientific claims based in evidence and facts. Discussion and understanding of logical fallacies is relevant to both of these pursuits.
 
Last edited:
GotR said:
Cresselia - have you tried actually knowing what you're talking about before weighing in?

Let's take these in order:

1. Of course you have to explain the fallacy! Most people don't know the correct Latin names of all the logical fallacies, and some of them don't even have names. For example, if you insulted me during a debate, it would absolutely be insufficient for me to just say 'that's an ad homenim' and move on. People aren't going to know what I'm talking about! It's far more convincing to counter with something like 'You're attempting to win this debate by attacking my character, rather than position, and my character has no relevance on whether or not my view is correct.' In other hypothetical situations, taking the time to actually explain why something is a logical fallacy can also help prevent you from making the logical fallacy that Ginku mentioned above: ie, the one that says 'Your argument is based in a logical fallacy, and is therefore rendered completely invalid'.

You go on to say, quote, 'You can't just debunk someone's logic and suppose you have won.' - but that's exactly what you're suggesting the OP does by naming a logical fallacy and not explaining. This is hypocrisy, in case I haven't made it clear enough.

2. 'My advice for you is to take a proper course on logic, so that you can know the names of the fallacies, and learn the proper way of how to disprove people logically.' It's already clear from the mess you've made of the first post, let alone your follow ups, that you yourself haven't taken a 'proper course in logic' - or at the very least, haven't learned anything from it. Despite this, you recommend that the OP, who already stated that they're studying philosophy at Cambridge, should do what you yourself haven't. Again, blatant hypocrisy.

3. I'm not sure why you've associated 'personality' with 'debating style'. Do you have any 'facts and figures' that back up this view point?

Further, I'm not sure why you've deemed 'figures' a necessary component of a competent debating style. While I agree that logical arguments must be based in fact, bringing up statistics seems irrelevant in a debate about, for example, abortion.

4. Your vast generalisation about the entirety of the UK and Hong Kong education systems is based on anecdotal evidence. Worse, it's your own anecdotal evidence, making subject to your own confirmation (and other) bias(es). Unless you happen to be a qualified expert of both of these topics, your one (emphasis: one) opinion is not even close to enough evidence to back up such a statement. In fact, even if you are an expert on both of those topics, I would still require several independent sources before beginning to trust this kind of information.

Further, your experience does not necessarily reflect the OP's experience. You have no where near enough evidence to determine whether or not the OP is 'just one of many many', or if the award they received actually does indicate some kind of unusual talent for the field they're studying.

5. You've very suddenly, and without a particular reason, decided to belittle the OP. Your post seems to convey the underlying message of 'you're not as smart as you think you are', despite the fact that you are in no position to determine how intelligent the OP is or isn't, and - given that fact that we know you didn't read the OP itself from the fact you didn't know about their university study - can't even have known whether or not the OP claimed to be extra intelligent. Further, despite the fact that you begin that post with 'Cambridge, huh...', you continue on to say 'once you get to university' implying that the OP's university experience isn't as valid as your own, which is frankly narcissistic (not to mention unsubstantiated).

6. Your definition of intelligence is frankly irrelevant, considering that what actually constitutes intelligence is still up for debate among prominent psychologists who've dedicated their careers to understanding more about that very specific part of the of the human mind (I definitely remember reading about different interpretations of intelligence in a study, I can make an effort to go find it again if you're particularly interested in proof of that statement). Further, relying on mainstream media to determine intelligence, of all places, reeks of an inability to form your own opinions, and given the article you cite displays a complete lack of understanding concerning the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

Frankly, I found the combination of your posts to overvalue your own opinion, which would be cause enough for concern, but is compounded by the fact that your opinion isn't internally consistent and lacks prior knowledge of the subject matter.

Ok, think I got that out of my system.

Edit: I would also like to make it very clear that I have no formal training in terms of logical debate. My experience comes purely from school debating, and from exploring content, especially podcasts, related to the logical discussion of scientific and pseudo-scientific claims based in evidence and facts. Discussion and understanding of logical fallacies is relevant to both of these pursuits.

My knight in shining armour.
 
Back in high school, I debated in the very Americanly named Lincoln-Douglas format. You see I always enjoyed arguing values, a bad habit I carried with me before I had ever started formal debating.

One common fallacy that cropped up during debates over compulsory vaccination, was someone presenting a correlation as something that established causation, or as we called it back then, post hoc. Say, if the rate of drowning increases on a hot day, is it caused by the increase in people swimming or the increase in ice cream sales?

Anyone trying to formulate an anti-vaccination argument using side effect claims got blown up pretty thoroughly. Of course, that was probably the worst possible angle to go for when arguing con on that prompt.

It's a shame, but I don't really have time for that kind of stuff anymore, as much fun as it was. I have exam questions asking me to use the convolution theorem to find inverse Laplace transforms, and being able to recite the ideals of Enlightment philosophers from memory won't help me solve differential equations or calculate current through every part of a circuit.
 
Captain Clefairy said:
Back in high school, I debated in the very Americanly named Lincoln-Douglas format. You see I always enjoyed arguing values, a bad habit I carried with me before I had ever started formal debating.

One common fallacy that cropped up during debates over compulsory vaccination, was someone presenting a correlation as something that established causation, or as we called it back then, post hoc. Say, if the rate of drowning increases on a hot day, is it caused by the increase in people swimming or the increase in ice cream sales?

Anyone trying to formulate an anti-vaccination argument using side effect claims got blown up pretty thoroughly. Of course, that was probably the worst possible angle to go for when arguing con on that prompt.

It's a shame, but I don't really have time for that kind of stuff anymore, as much fun as it was. I have exam questions asking me to use the convolution theorem to find inverse Laplace transforms, and being able to recite the ideals of Enlightment philosophers from memory won't help me solve differential equations or calculate current through every part of a circuit.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's a good one. I don't hear it an awful lot, though.

For those who don't know, this is a fallacious form of argument as follows:

Event A is followed by event B, therefore event A caused event B.

It is actually quite a pitfall in the sciences, and not always easy to avoid.
 
Saz Chan >^-^< said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's a good one. I don't hear it an awful lot, though.

For those who don't know, this is a fallacious form of argument as follows:

Event A is followed by event B, therefore event A caused event B.

It is actually quite a pitfall in the sciences, and not always easy to avoid.
This is especially true in fields like psychology that make extensive use of case studies. Creating a controlled condition for chemicals in a laboratory environment is very different from trying to find what causes certain behaviors in people. That's why historical instances of brain damage were very useful in furthering people's understanding in that area. Nowadays, people are trying to find genetic links to certain behaviors.
 
GotR said:
Cresselia - have you tried actually knowing what you're talking about before weighing in?

Let's take these in order:

1. Of course you have to explain the fallacy! Most people don't know the correct Latin names of all the logical fallacies, and some of them don't even have names. For example, if you insulted me during a debate, it would absolutely be insufficient for me to just say 'that's an ad homenim' and move on. People aren't going to know what I'm talking about! It's far more convincing to counter with something like 'You're attempting to win this debate by attacking my character, rather than position, and my character has no relevance on whether or not my view is correct.' In other hypothetical situations, taking the time to actually explain why something is a logical fallacy can also help prevent you from making the logical fallacy that Ginku mentioned above: ie, the one that says 'Your argument is based in a logical fallacy, and is therefore rendered completely invalid'.

You go on to say, quote, 'You can't just debunk someone's logic and suppose you have won.' - but that's exactly what you're suggesting the OP does by naming a logical fallacy and not explaining. This is hypocrisy, in case I haven't made it clear enough.

2. 'My advice for you is to take a proper course on logic, so that you can know the names of the fallacies, and learn the proper way of how to disprove people logically.' It's already clear from the mess you've made of the first post, let alone your follow ups, that you yourself haven't taken a 'proper course in logic' - or at the very least, haven't learned anything from it. Despite this, you recommend that the OP, who already stated that they're studying philosophy at Cambridge, should do what you yourself haven't. Again, blatant hypocrisy.

3. I'm not sure why you've associated 'personality' with 'debating style'. Do you have any 'facts and figures' that back up this view point?

Further, I'm not sure why you've deemed 'figures' a necessary component of a competent debating style. While I agree that logical arguments must be based in fact, bringing up statistics seems irrelevant in a debate about, for example, abortion.

4. Your vast generalisation about the entirety of the UK and Hong Kong education systems is based on anecdotal evidence. Worse, it's your own anecdotal evidence, making subject to your own confirmation (and other) bias(es). Unless you happen to be a qualified expert of both of these topics, your one (emphasis: one) opinion is not even close to enough evidence to back up such a statement. In fact, even if you are an expert on both of those topics, I would still require several independent sources before beginning to trust this kind of information.

Further, your experience does not necessarily reflect the OP's experience. You have no where near enough evidence to determine whether or not the OP is 'just one of many many', or if the award they received actually does indicate some kind of unusual talent for the field they're studying.

5. You've very suddenly, and without a particular reason, decided to belittle the OP. Your post seems to convey the underlying message of 'you're not as smart as you think you are', despite the fact that you are in no position to determine how intelligent the OP is or isn't, and - given that fact that we know you didn't read the OP itself from the fact you didn't know about their university study - can't even have known whether or not the OP claimed to be extra intelligent. Further, despite the fact that you begin that post with 'Cambridge, huh...', you continue on to say 'once you get to university' implying that the OP's university experience isn't as valid as your own, which is frankly narcissistic (not to mention unsubstantiated).

6. Your definition of intelligence is frankly irrelevant, considering that what actually constitutes intelligence is still up for debate among prominent psychologists who've dedicated their careers to understanding more about that very specific part of the of the human mind (I definitely remember reading about different interpretations of intelligence in a study, I can make an effort to go find it again if you're particularly interested in proof of that statement). Further, relying on mainstream media to determine intelligence, of all places, reeks of an inability to form your own opinions, and given the article you cite displays a complete lack of understanding concerning the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

Frankly, I found the combination of your posts to overvalue your own opinion, which would be cause enough for concern, but is compounded by the fact that your opinion isn't internally consistent and lacks prior knowledge of the subject matter.

Ok, think I got that out of my system.

Edit: I would also like to make it very clear that I have no formal training in terms of logical debate. My experience comes purely from school debating, and from exploring content, especially podcasts, related to the logical discussion of scientific and pseudo-scientific claims based in evidence and facts. Discussion and understanding of logical fallacies is relevant to both of these pursuits.
I didn't even insult the OP. And you are getting so worked up just because I'm trying to "belittle" an overly proud OP.

I'm just trying to tell the OP to be more humble, which is beneficial to him later on in life.

And why don't you just let people google the names of the fallacies themselves?
And let for example Wikipedia to do all the explaining?

That logic course bit was typed before I knew he was stydying in Cambridge, and I somehow didn't delete it.
But even so, is this one mistake so unforgivable?

Over value my own opinion? How?
What about those people who actually insult people for not being on their side?
You act like you have completely no problem when those people use abusive language (on the race thread), but every time I do a little something, you have to have an opinion about it?

It's bloody funny how you accuse me of so many things that are simply not true.
Narcissistic? lol.
 
Last edited:
^You are the same person who perpetually indulges in appeals to authority [that's a fallacy look it up!], and the authority happens to be you 99% of the time. Even here your post calling out the OP was littered with generalizations, tu quoque and personal incredulities. the above post is a shifting goalpost that mischaracterizes the person you are trying to quote.


i t ' s a l l s o m e t a . . . . .
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
follow-up hidden because person concerned deleted their post making me look like a double-posting douche
literally every time you use your qualifications or background or education to supplant actual burden of proof in response to arguments and assertions.

like the last time I came across your post where you justified the credibility of Rebel Media purely on the basis of the fact that you have some acceleration shit in education.

or here how you completely negated the OPs concerns by downplaying his alma mater based on an arbitrary criteria because... well you believe it, so it must be right. why is being on the news a benchmark of intelligence, how is it even relevant, in a formal debate on issues where does social skill figure, WHY does social skill figure. why is that random hongkong prof more "authetically intelligent"? why is your anecdotal experience of UK education enough to completely underplay the OPs concerns and declare his ego to be inflated? and like most of your other posts there is zero analysis and argumentation for anything except a bunch of assertions backed by nothing but the gold seal of approval by being "in your books".


that's all besides the point, you substantially edited and appended your tone deaf post after my call-out, but even if your claims were true it would still be the case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:
Soul Fly said:
^You are the same person who perpetually indulges in appeals to authority [that's a fallacy look it up!], and the authority happens to be you 99% of the time. Even here your post calling out the OP was littered with generalizations, tu quoque and personal incredulities. the above post is a shifting goalpost that mischaracterizes the person you are trying to quote.


i t ' s a l l s o m e t a . . . . .
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Oooh, tu quoque. Sexy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top