並べ替え:
新着
注目トップ論争中

btc 内の yippykaiyay012 によるリンク I Think I'm Switching...

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Appeal to Authority":

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

DebateAChristian 内の M1A1M1A1 によるリンク What is the Evidence the Bible is Divinely Inspired?

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

PoliticalHumor 内の FUNKYDISCO によるリンク Born to Run

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Ad Hominem":

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the source making it rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy as it attacks the source of the argument, which is irrelevant to to the truth or falsity of the argument. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which attacks the person but does not seek to rebut the person's argument. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether somebody is credible -- eg, "believe X because I am Y" -- then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications.

CringeAnarchy 内の provaut によるリンク TED, not TEDx, is starting to upload more and more Feminist propaganda, now they start disabling comments and dislikes

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Ad Hominem":

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the source making it rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy as it attacks the source of the argument, which is irrelevant to to the truth or falsity of the argument. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which attacks the person but does not seek to rebut the person's argument. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether somebody is credible -- eg, "believe X because I am Y" -- then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications.

gatekeeping 内の musicguyguy によるリンク American Muslims are "Muslim-lite" and not true Muslims. (deleted thread on /r/The_Donald)

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "No True Scotsman":

The No True Scotsman NTS fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defines a group such that every groupmember posses some quality. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:

During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.

Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.

NTS can be thought of as a form of inverted cherry picking, where instead of selecting favourable examples, you reject unfavourable ones.

altright 内の winter-sleep によるリンク Percentage of Jewish population in the United States, 2000

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Ad Hominem":

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the source making it rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy as it attacks the source of the argument, which is irrelevant to to the truth or falsity of the argument. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which attacks the person but does not seek to rebut the person's argument. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether somebody is credible -- eg, "believe X because I am Y" -- then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications.

law 内の SobelsDaemon によるリンク Randazza: Legalize Child Porn?

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Ad Hominem":

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the source making it rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy as it attacks the source of the argument, which is irrelevant to to the truth or falsity of the argument. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which attacks the person but does not seek to rebut the person's argument. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether somebody is credible -- eg, "believe X because I am Y" -- then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications.

AskTrumpSupporters 内の wm806zi によるリンク Why are populism and nationalism good things?

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

UpliftingNews 内の lookatmetype によるリンク Singer stops show to rescue harassed Girl

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

TheRedPill 内の GizmodeGarage によるリンク "She's Probably Out Getting Fucked"

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "No True Scotsman":

The No True Scotsman NTS fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defines a group such that every groupmember posses some quality. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:

During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.

Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.

NTS can be thought of as a form of inverted cherry picking, where instead of selecting favourable examples, you reject unfavourable ones.

PurplePillDebate 内の FairlyNaive によるリンク "We've been lied to" stories.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

ELI5news 内の twigpig707 によるリンク Why does the GOP want to repeal Obamacare and the affordable care act?

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

moderatepolitics 内の Gnome_Sane によるリンク Trump vs. CNN's Jim Acosta: "You Are Fake News," I'm Not Giving You A Question

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Appeal to Authority":

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

NeutralPolitics 内の article10ECHR によるリンク Did Republican lawmakers "obstruct President Barack Obama at every turn" to an historically "unprecedented" degree? What specific parts of his agenda have not been accomplished because of it?

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

nintendo 内の theradol によるリンク Success or not, the switch is genius. I haven't seen anyone lay out why so I'm going to explain it.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

law 内の competitionroolz によるリンク Merrick Garland returns to DC Circuit today and begins hearing cases again.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "No True Scotsman":

The No True Scotsman NTS fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defines a group such that every groupmember posses some quality. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:

During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.

Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.

NTS can be thought of as a form of inverted cherry picking, where instead of selecting favourable examples, you reject unfavourable ones.

atheism 内の freeth1nker によるリンク WATCH: Al Franken destroys Education appointee Betsy DeVos over her support for gay conversion therapy

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Ad Hominem":

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the source making it rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy as it attacks the source of the argument, which is irrelevant to to the truth or falsity of the argument. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which attacks the person but does not seek to rebut the person's argument. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether somebody is credible -- eg, "believe X because I am Y" -- then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications.

DotA2 内の tlhan によるリンク MMR should be shown on our reddit usernames (from dotabuff)

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Appeal to Authority":

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

atheism 内の freeth1nker によるリンク WATCH: Al Franken destroys Education appointee Betsy DeVos over her support for gay conversion therapy

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Ad Hominem":

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the source making it rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy as it attacks the source of the argument, which is irrelevant to to the truth or falsity of the argument. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which attacks the person but does not seek to rebut the person's argument. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether somebody is credible -- eg, "believe X because I am Y" -- then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications.

Bitcoin 内の brg444 によるリンク Blockstream announces the release of the Strong Federations paper, a foundation for the Liquid sidechain

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

JustProBlackThings 内の BlasianTyga によるリンク Van Jones VS. Alex Jones' Lackeys

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

WritingPrompts 内の PrimaryColt によるリンク [WP] Everyone in the world stays up all week and never gets tired but they all sleep the whole day on Saturday, except you, you're the only one who doesn't sleep on Saturday

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

spikes 内の yoman5 によるリンク [Standard][Article] Where to Start

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Appeal to Authority":

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

2007scape 内の Minotaur830 によるリンク This sub

[–]FallacyExplnationBot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

Physics 内の DOI_borg によるリンク Give the public the tools to trust scientists

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

続きを見る 次 ›