Benjamin
You have derailed your own thread as it looks as if you are guilty of many debate fallacies on your own thread:laugh::laugh:
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Argumentum verbosium
onus probandi – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
(cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[21]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[24]
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[27]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[28]
Inflation Of Conflict - The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.
Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[34]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moral high ground fallacy - in which a person assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make himself look good to win an argument.
Personal Attacks ("Argumentum ad Hominem")- the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent
Hedging- using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later
False Authority- (single authority)- using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion
You are guilty of all of these debate fallacies my friend...shocking as it is, but nevertheless true.:wavey:
You have derailed your own thread as it looks as if you are guilty of many debate fallacies on your own thread:laugh::laugh:
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Argumentum verbosium
onus probandi – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
(cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[21]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[24]
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[27]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[28]
Inflation Of Conflict - The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.
Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[34]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moral high ground fallacy - in which a person assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make himself look good to win an argument.
Personal Attacks ("Argumentum ad Hominem")- the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent
Hedging- using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later
False Authority- (single authority)- using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion
You are guilty of all of these debate fallacies my friend...shocking as it is, but nevertheless true.:wavey:
