reddit master (de)bater wins again 😤😤


No they don't


Very accurate flair


Thank you. I appreciate that. 🙏🏽 Especially coming from an SCP


Time for a second comment on your very accurate flair from one of those ;)


damn are you actually a literal cyborg trans girl?? im jealous /srs


I'm kept alive by a magnetically programmable valve that controls my spinal fluid flow, have various metal implants to block veins to prevent cancer growth in my brain (plus boring screws and tubes), and by god the transness is off the charts you wouldn't believe how much I love my Blåhaj


What \[REDACTED\] did you just say about me, you \[REDACTED\]? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the \[REDACTED\], and I’ve been involved in \[DATA EXPUNGED\], and I have over ███ confirmed \[REDACTED\]. I am trained in \[REDACTED\] and I’m the top \[REDACTED\] in the entire \[REDACTED\]. You are nothing to me but just another \[REDACTED\]. I will \[DATA EXPUNGED\], mark my \[REDACTED\]. You think you can get away with saying that REDACTED\] to me over the \[REDACTED\]? Think again, \[REDACTED\]. As we speak I am \[DATA EXPUNGED\] and \[DATA EXPUNGED\] so you better prepare for the storm, \[REDACTED\]. The \[REDACTED\] that wipes out the \[REDACTED\] little thing you call \[REDACTED\]. You’re \[REDACTED\], kid. I can be \[REDACTED\], \[REDACTED\], and I can \[REDACTED\] you in over \[REDACTED\] ways, and that’s just with my \[REDACTED\]. Not only am I extensively trained in \[REDACTED\] combat, but I have access to the entire \[DATA EXPUNGED\] and I will use it to its full extent to wipe \[REDACTED\] off the face of the continent, you \[REDACTED\]. If only you could have known what \[REDACTED\] your little “clever” \[REDACTED\] was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have \[DATA EXPUNGED\]. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re \[REDACTED\], you \[REDACTED\]. I will \[REDACTED\] all over you and you will \[REDACTED\] in it. You’re \[DATA EXPUNGED\], kiddo.


He's committing a fallacy fallacy, assuming that, simply because something has logical fallacies, it must be wrong.


this is an actual thing for people wondering


it's important for people to understand that most "logical fallacies" you see on the internet are not actually formal logical fallacies that run afoul of the three/two laws of logic, but informal ones that simply fail to support their premises. A = B, A = C, C =/= B would be a formal logical fallacy that violates non-contradiction.


Also people use logical fallacies as a way to shut down the conversation, like a debate is supposed to be boiled down to "last one to make a fallacious argument wins" and not an endeavour to discover which side of the argument is more valid.


"Debate" according to most overly aggressive people - especially on the internet - is absolutely seen as just bossing people around, but sanctioned. Actual debate usually includes some degree of both parties being able to separate themselves from the emotional impact of either side winning. If you can't do that it's just an argument IMO.


Debate isn't even supposed to be "won", it's supposed to be a venue for the audience to see an opinion displayed in a context where they can evaluate it while it's being cross examined. True debate is valuable even when you don't change your opinion.


Exactly. I was very careful not to include the word "win" in my comment for this reason.


Damn that's super informative thanks. Unfortunately 🤓


I'm not owned, I'm not owned!!




Mf getting CORNED


dril do not miss




uhm ackshually…


🌽 -Fae


copium fallacy


I am 😎 (🥺)


As a glassican american I take offense to this


ad hominem


I agree with everything you said, but have to nitpick one thing. There's far, far more than 2 or 3 logical laws. I would assume you mean Boolean logic, where everything is either true or false. There are a lot of logical laws (de Morgan, associative, commutative, absorption, identity, etc.). If you meant axioms instead, there's actually single line axioms to define all of Boolean logic apparently. But yeah, just a nerdy nitpick from a person who likes maths far too much lol


I'm referring to identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. In the context of any online argument those are what matters when considering the actual logic of a thing. I have no doubt what I offered was a simplification though lol. I appreciate the input of someone with a more relevant field of expertise :3


I'm certainly not an expert on logical fallacies, but shouldn't there also be a concerse / inverse error? That is when you have given: `When A then B` and you conclude `When not A, then not B`. Like, if it rains, the street is wet is given. And concluding "if it doesn't rain it's not wet" is false (since other stuff could have wetted the street too). Maybe that is one of those fallacies that you mentioned, I gotta confess, that I hadn't heard those names before, since my perspective comes from a mathematical and yours from a more practical one looking at specific fallacies.


In my example, I give three statements. If statements 1 and 2 (A is B and C) are accepted as true , then 3 (B is not C) cannot be true because that would violate non-contradiction (and maybe identity, I forget the details). So if someone says "3" you can know for certain that it's false.


Example? I can't help thinking the following: Shape A is a Square, Shape A is Red, but "Square" does not imply "Red"




Bem Shabipo best debaterr!


As a fallacy that makes sense but as a mathematician that is horrid


I’m something of an intellectual 😎


I got your logical phallusy right here, nerd




Yooo you're the guy with the two circles for a profile pic, shoutout


So like all beanies are hats and all berets are hats, but not all beanies are berets?


Similar but different. I'm quite literally saying "hats are hats" in the first two statements, and the third says "hats are not hats" which is fallacious.


What about the chunk of fallacies that are simply variations of the non sequitur(ie. where the premise(s) don’t support the conclusion)?


thanks, at first I thought they'd committed a fallacy fallacy fallacy


Ah yes, a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy. Quite common these days.


Yeah, just pulling out fallacy doesn't mean you win, you have to actually explain what's fallacious and why that matters/invalidates the argument


That's my beef with so many people busting out the "ad hominem" fallacy. It's not just "you said something rude", it's "you used something rude *in place of* an actual argument". If I say 2 + 2 = 4 *and* call you a twat, that doesn't make my math wrong. It makes me an asshole, but not incorrect until you prove the actual point wrong.


The sky is made of steak Steaks are red The sky is red Is logically correct, but clearly wrong. My grandma's favorite color is blue You wouldn't want to make my grandma sad would you? The sky is blue Logically this is wrong, but factually the conclusion is true Yelling "insert fallacy" at me and my grandma statement doesn't make an opposing view correct or mine wrong. It just makes my think think pathways not easy to follow


That's where formal logic breaks down. It's math not facts. It can tell you if a reason for knowing something is a sound equation. It does not care about the statements themself. One has to assume that both statements are true to accept the answer. Formal logic isn't a way to win an argument. its more like telling someone Thier thought process for believing certain things is flawed.






Also pathos (appeal to emotion) is not a fallacy at all, but rather a pillar of rhetoric.


both appeals to emotion (pathos) and appeals to authority (ethos) are logical fallacies, not because they aren’t effective in rhetoric, but because they don’t function as logos, which is the only component of rationalism. rhetoric is important in debate but debate is not rhetoric.


Are you strawmanning them? They never made any inference, they're just noticing the fallacies


No he isn't. If someone is using fallacies, you have no reason to believe them. The conclusion you get from using fallacies is not necessarily wrong (as you say) but it is unsupported. If the onus is on the wife to convince the husband to not leave, and if she only uses fallacies, then she has failed. However, the wife is NOT USING any fallacies and that's where the problem actually is. It's a moral argument, and the wife is trying to convince the husband by listing the negative moral consequences of his actions, which is completely valid. - There is no sunk cost, because the wife isn't trying to convince herself to not do something beneficial because of the time that has passed. She is trying to remind the husband of the emotional investment the family has in him after 15 years and the damage this will cause. (moral negative) + There is no appeal to emotion, because the wife isn't trying to convince the husband by manipulating his emotion. She is reminding him of the emotional damage he will inflict on his kids. (moral negative) + There is no ad hominem, because the wife isn't trying to defeat the husband by appealing to his personal attributes, she is simply insulting him. Insults are not necessarily ad hominem, but that's a common misconception. TL;DR there are no fallacies, not even the fallacy fallacy.


He doesn't assume anything.


“The witness claims they saw you kill the victim” “Your honor, that’s anecdotal evidence”


To be fair, a major problem with relying on witness testimony *is* that people are full of shit and don't know what they're talking about. Human memory is super fallible and easy to warp.


Yup, it’s like a wiki page. But unmoderated.


Yes, but the flaw there isn't "anecdotal evidence", it's "the witness might be misremembering". If the witness's memory was 110% sharp, then the "anecdotal evidence" would be admissible.


There is no such witness. If there was you couldn’t tell them apart from any other witness






Patches has a family?


O'Houlihan or The Hyena?


That’s megamind






They were killed by clerics🙏🙏🙏


Patches the Untethered


that's not ad hominem. an ad hominem is when the insult is used as the basis for an argument, as in "i'm. right because you're an asshole". a simple insult that isn't used to build any arguments is just an insult, not a logical fallacy.


Ur mom is a logical fallacy lolz




Ad hominem /s


I’m logical fallacious ***😳😳😳***


So that's ad homonoms now, right?


ha gottem


Absolutely destroyed.


I'm right because my 1RM bench press is higher than yours This is what I call the "Chad Hominem"


Liftocracy 😔


Elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!


Fuck yeah, finally a president that surrounds himself with experts and listens to their advice!


How the world should be run


Thank you, Hatsune Miku


but him thinking incorrectly that any insult is ad hominem is far more accurate to someone who cares about logical fallacies in personal arguments


your conclusion must also be a fallacy, I'm sure


Nice straw man you've got there




Holy shit hatsuon miku. Can I get an autograph?


I have a pet snail - -𝓗𝓪𝓽𝓼𝓾𝓷𝓮 𝓜𝓲𝓴𝓾 -


Thank you very much miss miku :D


Fallacy fallacy


Fallacy fallacy fallacy


I feel like what you’re describing is just name-calling, aka the lowest form of argument. Ad hominem attacks the characteristics of the writer (“selfish”), as well as the authority, (“how could YOU think about doing this”)


>whataboutism Epic, owned, delete your Reddit account and PayPal me 7 dollars 😎😎


Yeah i've seen people using a argument and insulting someone, and then the other person just demisses the argument because there is a insult alongside it.


Ad hominem is what happens when my username


Gentleman Pirate type beat.


Normalize admitting that your relationship with your wife is strained because you were part of an arranged marriage and the best way for you both to grow as people and achieve your goals is to fuck off in the middle of the night to be a gay pirate.


handmade wojaks are so much more appealing than those factory manufactured ones


I personally prefer wojaks that grow in the wild.


I’m a free range wojaks enjoyer


i assumed that all wojaks were hand-drawn, as in, mouse-drawn in MS Paint.


some of them use like actual hair from pictures


oh yeah, those ones can rot give me Feels Guy or give me nothing at all


the original mold was hand drawn but every version since was made by a machine to repeat the exact dimensions of the original


I only use ethically sourced wojaks


artisanal, fair-trade wojaks


>"Sending more troops to Vietnam because it has already cost us so much is a sunk cost fallacy" 🤓 > >"Not getting vaccinated because you can still get Covid is a nirvana fallacy" 🤓 > >"Saying no one should get gender reassignment surgery because it's unnatural is an apeal to nature." 🤓 > >"Do you have any evidence for that great replacement theory of yours?" 🤓 Yeah, God forbid we just point out flawed arguments with labels that already exist instead of writing a whole essay why the other person is wrong. It might make us look like debate bros, and we all know that looking good in front of other leftists is more important than the actual debate.


> great replacement theory whats that?


Stupid conspiracy theory that right wingers push that basically says that minorities are trying to replace white people in society and need to be stopped


the fact right wingers are so afraid of being minorities really says alot about how they want to/expect minorities to be treated tbh


You seem to have missed the point. It's not that pointing out flawed arguments is bad. It's that people misunderstand and misuse logical fallacies to win arguments and treat everything like high school debate club. And really, your mischaracterization of the comic is a huge strawman. Therefore I win this round of debate.


Except people always act as if merely saying it makes you a debate bro, even if you are correct and aren't misusing the fallacy at all. >And really, your mischaracterization of the comic is a huge strawman. Therefore I win this round of debate. Objection! Surely you are aware that according to the rules of online leftism (69 U.S.C. §420, 1984), it's not a strawman argument if the defendant accuses OP of dog whistling.


Sure, bringing up logical fallacies doesn't automatically make you a debate bro who's using it wrong. But in my experience, that is the case about 90% of the time.


Who/what is this referencing?


Nothing, I think. I think it's just making fun of 5head debate bros who view everything as a logical debate


Ah thanks I see that now


People in online comment sections who think they have 200iq by pointing out fallacies in people's posts.




Lies! The post mentions kids, but the debate bro isn't frothing at the mouth and shouting "AWOOGA", so it can't be voosh.


Vingle only does that with underage **horses.** Get your lore right.


Impossible to tell if this was commented by a fan or not


voush mentioned post locked instantly




Gautama Buddha




oh em gee is that a the binding of Isaac reference 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱


it’s GONE, i SPENT it, just GET OVER it


I'm sorry Isaac


Lowkey, I finally get this part. It's repetitive because it's a traumatic memory playing in his head over and over again.


Yeah, the whole game, every item, boss, enemy is based of of isaac’s multiple traumas and fears. It’s extremely depressing >!specially when even in the “best” ending he still dies.!<


>!I love it when the bosses have a vague meaning, yet you can tell they imply something. Like Dogma, who I interpret to be a literal representation of the child his mother wanted him to be, literally made out of Christian broadcasts, and by defeating Dogma, hopefully it shatters the illusion of the child he'll never be.!<


>!Oh that's really cool. It's obvious it's the personification of Christian propaganda but never made the connection about it being the child he should've been in his mother's eyes.!< Still amazes me how a simple, weird, gross looking game can get so deep and have so many interpretations.


This image resonates with me. Men are logical thinkers. The woman wants to bring the man down to her intellectual level, but because she is outpaced cognitively, the man remains a mental fortress bound for his life goals.


this is hilarious


>this image resonates with me Yeah, it would.


A single mental fortress who loses custody of his children. Checkmate women.


Wtf hell no way. I mean, is this post /s? Because the man is not logical, he's a dickhead. No, not even dickhead, an antisocial bastard, who cannot follow the basic rules of society. With this ammount of info the man just simply leaves the family, at least 3 ppl, who were dependent on him. His children may even suffer mental damages.


Ad hominem.


We needed LoliLewderOppaiLover to stand up for children 😔


Whataboutism 🥱


Relax. They were just being sarcastic, LoliLewderOppaiLover.




Ad victoriam Wait…


people who are actually like this are infuriating. your logic wont keep you from catching hands


Cant believe Patches just left his wife like that


the binding of isaac: repentance


Our flag means death vibe


It's a good show


Appeal to emotion isn’t a logical fallacy


You aren't a logical fallacy either. Your point?


Thank you Saitama, very cool


if anyone has earned the right to do some globetrotting and see the world its saitama


Ok but seriously anyone who just starts spouting off random fallacies or calls their opponents a bot is a little bitch


Inaccurate, a real redditor would say the names of the fallacies out loud instead of just imagining them


He'd read the entries on yourlogicalfallacyis put loud


This is why i say a responsibility based moral system is stupid. "But you live in a world of consequences and thus must aknowledge the consequences of your actions" I DIDN'T AGREE TO BE BORN IN A WORLD OF CONSEQUENCES. I understand them and thus I choose the consequences that I wish to happen and the actions I need to do but that doesn't mean I agree with that system. I can rage at the fact that I need food to survive because I want to survive but I don't want to work to earn food. I'm angry at the fact that I'm going to die because I did not choose to live and yet I enjoy living. LIVING SHOULDN'T COME WITH AN UNSIGNED AGREEMENT TO BE PRODUCTIVE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. ​ But yeah this guy is a dick for leaving his family.


But you do live in a world of consequences and pretending you don't or making actions as though you don't or even just spending time mourning the thought of it is only going to hurt you and others Even in a post scarcity utopia there would still be consequences to everything you do, that's just reality. This comes off as someone screaming at God that they have to take a shower and that people get mad when they ghost them I mean I agree with your general premise I'm a big believer in "people didn't ask to be born" and no one should have to be productive but you can't conflate that with screaming into the void that you want to make decisions regardless of consequences


The problem with the whole "you shouldn't have to work to be able to survive" thing is that making food, shelter, clean water, etc. takes a shitton of effort nowadays so it's really unfair if all of the work other people do to provide for you results in you doing literally nothing in return


I know that but this is the one time we are not discussing politics. I'm talking feelings and however much materialism you make me agree with I'm still going to be angry at the fact that I have to take 30 mg of anti-depressants everyday.


>LIVING SHOULDN'T COME WITH AN UNSIGNED AGREEMENT TO BE PRODUCTIVE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. But, in order to survive without being productive, others must work *for* you. I don't see what's wrong about having to work to live; every single animal does. The issue is that we are made to work too much, with too little benefits.


Yeah, this and with moral consequences. You didn't choose to be born into a world with moral consequences, but other people will bear the consequence of the moral actions you take. The responsibility we have toward other people CAN be ignored, but others will suffer and you will have caused it.


We're inevitably making human labor irrelevant with automation, and that process is only going to accelerate as technology improves. If we keep the standard that one must work to live, but then make it so that there isn't enough work to do, then people will die. This is already happening. The only logical solution is to remove the requirement to work, and make working a thing you do to gain privileges, influence, and respect.


We’re not nearly at that point yet. Do you know how many villagers work in sweatshops in Bangladesh because they have no other choice to make money? We’re not even at the point where the average human has the time to get an education, they have to work to make ends meet. The only reason the US enjoys a much higher quality of life than most other countries is because of global hegemony at the expense of third world nations. If the US became isolationist, the average American and Bengali would suffer more. Until the third world gets uplifted, it’ll be very hard to reach an automated utopia. But the US contributes much less than the average developed nation towards developing the third world. 0.5% of a 40T GDP. Canada contributes 1~% of their 2T GDP. The most generous country, Sweden, donates 1.5%. Until the world can come together to pool their resources as one global world order, capitalism will thrive imo, and there will be first world winners, and third world losers. Global inequality keeps rising, and the ones in power race to widen that gap. The food prices in the US are just a third or fifth of that in Bangladesh. But American politics will see to it that first world problems are prioritized over third world problems, at the expense of one of the worlds poorest nations, because of soviet politics 40 years ago during a famine which killed millions an ocean away. Fuck Henry Kissinger.


This is facts. You're literally so fucking right.


I'm trying to keep this in the phylosophy side because yes. I understand the Antiwork movement to be about workers rights, not about abolishing work. However even tho I'm willing to help workers however I can doesn't mean I'm not angry at the fact that I can't just exist without responsibilities. No matter how much I reason it away it's hardcoded in my psyche. My only option is to suffer it and keep going.


based normal fucking human being


i sincerely hope you live to see a world free of capitalism and all that upsets you, i think you and anyone deserves that peace that being said ya isnt it so weird we have to convince the people in power that we “deserve” to live


I'm all for socialism, but it's not some utopia that many people think. You still have to work, lol. I got heavily downvoted once for suggesting that socialism wouldn't solve racism...


>socialism wouldn't solve racism just say that its class reductionism


To be fair, a world as imagined by class reductionist socialists probably is less racist than what we currently have. Not like that means terribly much though.


I think it's a yin/yang kinda deal. You can't have the good without the bad. Yeah needing to do things to survive sucks, would be cool if everyone could just always have everything they want and need all of the time. But if that were the case we'd get really fucking bored real fast. That's why I don't like the Christian concept of heaven, boring as fuck, I'd rather go to hell.


If I may come on too strong, that's an overused fantasy of a justification. What would anyone do if they didn't have to work? Hang out with friends 24/7, and when tired of people pursue a hobby or relax with a beer by a lake. For crying out loud if the world was too boring to live in without work, in a world without work just build yourself a second house! And the concept of heaven? Where you can study endlessly the minutia of every moment in all of reality? Take a nap on the beach for thirteen millennia, then read a book for another six? You'd get "bored"??


It's very clearly a cop-out bunch of sour grapes by people who haven't thought hard enough about it.


I dont know, I think id take my chances with getting bored rather than not being able to pay rent and starving to death on the streets


I interpreted the other guy as talking about basic survival needs, not late-stage capitalism.


I think you deserve a house and food even if you don't work but I also believe god should suffer a roleplay session with me as dungeon master.


>Yeah needing to do things to survive sucks, would be cool if everyone could just always have everything they want and need all of the time. But if that were the case we'd get really fucking bored real fast. Do you think suffering is the only way to alleviate boredom?


If I can't have the good without the bad I don't want the good I just do not want to experience bad things period


This comment reads like a manifesto in the worst kind of ways


I swear I don't own guns and the closest I've been to terrorism has been editing pro-life to be critical of prolife People. I PLAYED FALLOUT NEW VEGAS I SWEAR


I feel like I'm missing the context for a joke here or people are just making fun of me for not playing New Vegas (I've got the game, but c'mon, it's long and I'm not in the mood. I still have to finish Bioshock)


It's a trans joke. The meme is that you can't play New Vegas if you are not trans and that if you can play It's because you are about to be transed. It's because of a viral picture from some years ago where a guy is confused thinking the transflag is from a real place and then says that a lot of cute girls are from there and know a lot about fallout New Vegas. This made us all laugh. I'm still laughing


i fucking love this subreddit


Ging Freecs moment


Wow strawmaning the wife much?




Logical Fallacy: Ad Hurtem


i'd be careful, this guy looks like he can take out every opponent with a single punch


appeal to emotion is fine here. there is no argument pretending to use emotion as a logical premise (fallacy of pathos), rather, the emotion IS the argument. so this one is watertight


Chad doctor Trayaurus


Destiny fans be like


avrage jcs viewer




I'd argue that the second one isn't a fallacy in this case. The argument presented is, "If you leave this will badly affect the emotional state of your children, whom you theoretically, love." Which, assuming he cares about that, should be somewhat compelling. A better example of appeal to emotion would be... Ugh... Shit, I'ma go there aren't I? Pitbulls. The core argument about pitbulls is, "Are pitbulls dangerous?" A favorite argument for pitbulls is, "[But look how cute they are](https://blog.nature.org/science/files/2022/01/96892983faf652b7faf8067c54aca857_original-1260x708.jpg)." Which is an appeal to emotion. Because a pitbull being cute has no bearing on rather or not they're dangerous. By contrast, an argument against pitbulls might be, "Here's a picture of a snarling pitbull. Look how dangerous it is." Which is also an appeal to emotion. I'm not going to go into which side I, overall, think is right. But, if you're looking for people that make bad arguments, this is the debate to look into. (I caught myself falling for the fallacy, fallacy argument in it recently too.)


Facts and logic


Either there is more memes about divorce on this sub and others recently, or maybe I’m just noticing them more. Either way, they hit too close to home.


The Binding of Isaac lore