You people need to learn to recognize fallacies in your thinking

It's important, so much so that we have it stickied. You can't just ignore it nor simply shout things like "fallacy fallacy!" when someone calls you out on a fallacy. If your thinking and your argument are fallacious, your argument is simply invalid. That means your conclusion does not follow from your premises. "b-but you haven't proved me wrong," isn't a valid argument either and is only an attempt to shift burden of proof. A fallacy fallacy is also only committed when it's concluded that the conclusion of an argument is false just because the argument is invalid, which is fallacious. Obviously, the conclusion can still be right by accident. One does not commit a fallacy fallacy simply by citing how your argument is fallacious. Fallacies are not simply meaningless words you can nullify with some canned, banal comeback, like "not an argument."

This shit is important for the conception of rational thought, and without it, you're all just a bunch of babbling idiots.

Fuck off, Marx was wrong, get over it.

All logic is circular.

Fallacy does not make argument moot, its a fallacy on itself to think they tackle an argument.

No-one cares what you think faggot

no u deal with it and get over it. Period.

>t. retard who failed logic
False, if axioms of logic are accepted - as simple as "Truth can't be false," etc. People like you straight talking out of their ass are what's wrong with this board.

college-indoctrinated liberals seem like more of a problem to me.

What fallacy is it on your fancy chart when you create a thread saying that no one has an argument, and you don't address anyone's argument?

Or is that just straight up bull shit?

Pay attention because this is some next level subterfuge. Theres emotionally charged statements that are attacking the president or his policies peppered throughout that list. That jab at global warming on the second one in was less then subtle. These statements form anchor points that subtly influence the reader as he scans through them. Its a more advanced and insidious form of shilling.

why do you accept axioms

>its a fallacy on itself to think they tackle an argument.
>tackle an argument.
>argument
Wrong.

The problem is you retards can't even keep your internal logic sound. I mean look at this post; you've only made baseless assertions with no explanation.

You don't "win" the argument if the other person just gives up because they find you insuferrable with your muh logical fallacies bullshit.

So how much ritalin did you take today?

Most of the people making stupid claims are either trolls or complete idiots and you cant distinguish them.

No point arguing with either.

ok for any retard out there answer is: because of other axioms. which is circular rescue from the circular logic.

>thinking anyone who browses the Sup Forums hugbox is actually interested in expanding their mind or challenging their beliefs
this is where you fucked up kiddo.

>YOU DON'T WIN THOUGH NEENER NEENER NEENER
A
No, axioms are accepted because they seem self-evident. You can argue that all axioms are actually just unsupported assumptions and that there's no such thing as "self-evidence," but then you're invalidating all of your thoughts and you should shut the fuck up.
If you say "There is no such thing as fallacies," because logic, like all 'knowledge,' is based on axioms, then there is also no such thing as an argument and you've said nothing meaningful.
>Sup Forums is a hugbox
>we let idiots like you speak here constantly
Pick one and only one.

>listing literally every single argumentative style

What is the autist approved way to debate then? Transfer my beliefs to your brain with my psychic powers?

>If you say "There is no such thing as fallacies," because logic
why do you presuppose logic

I know this is bait, but this pol hugbox meme is just a meme. Sure, you'll get shitted on if you have a differing opinion to the general consensus, but at least you're not banned or downvoted and you have the opportunity to answer back as long as you follow the board's guidelines.

making lists of fallacies with biased example of course

I'm sorry, what? I don't presuppose logic therefore I can't understand anything you say. Repeat yourself please?

You can communicate arguments without them. If you u ironically think these are good ways to present arguments, you aren't thinking much.

Sure debaters use them, but that's because debaters aren't trying to be truthful, they are trying to win.

I love how all the examples are leftist.
>scientists denying climate change, when the most common argument is muh 97%
>the eye example is the only case for creation
>homosexuals who cannot have children can now get married because marriage isn't about the union of man/woman, who, by definition, are supposed to create life
>muh not all Islam, even though this can be easily refuted by reading the Quran or observing historical instances
>birth control not being used to prevent having children
>school children aren't being taught about homosexuality and trans bs
>legalizing drugs is bad, but we should legalize it because...
>rap music isn't violent
>dehumanization matters when you're dealing with criminals
>MSM not reporting on Obama's heritage and beliefs because it is incriminating and won't get him votes when they are openly liberal
>

>but at least you're not banned or downvoted and you have the opportunity to answer back as long as you follow the board's guidelines.
No, you'll just get a bunch of strawmen arguments like
>I know this is bait but
and if you have a funny meme flag like Canada or Sweden or Brazil you'll get shit on for that, not the content of your post.
>Sup Forums is a hugbox
>we let idiots like you speak here constantly
>we let
>we
this is where you fucked up kiddo.

If an argument is fallacious, it simply isn't an argument, though. People get nowhere when they're "arguing" because they're not actually saying anything rational.

Oh, I thought I was the only person who saw this.

>appeal to anecdotal evidence
>Sup Forums

Nigger, I'm one to shit on a good ol fashiomed fallacy but this is basically all Sup Forums.

>appeal to authority
Does this include statistics? They're the "experts" right?

You should make your own version. Wouldnt take too long. I am too lazy.

There is no "appealing to expertise" fallacy.

An expert on a subject is an authority on it yes, but also an expert. The appeal to authority fallacy would be like taking the word of the Pope as irrefutable on a subject like biology or politics.
He is no expert on either topic. He is just an authority figure.

Hope that clears things up.

So fucking what? That's not a hugbox. You can meme back at their flag. Try again

Also, I know your "bait is strawman" is bait. Checkmate, friend-o

I think I will, actually. One without bullshit arguments on either side to push your shit.
An appeal to authority would be appealing to the source of the claim as being the determining factor for its validity. So a scientist is right about everything science-related by the mere fact that he is a scientist. He is right because the content of his assertion is accurate and not inaccurate.

fpbp

People for whom appealing to authority helps their narrative would have you think otherwise, but 'appeal to authority' is always a fallacy, because 'authority' has no intrinsic bearing on whether one's claims are true.

Using a trusted source to back up an arguement is not a logical fallacy. That trusted source could be a well respected expert.

Any old scientist spouting nonsense would be a logical fallacy. I wouldnt see any scientist as an authority figure.

In science the reputation of a source absolutely is considered.

That's what I was getting at. You post a graph or whatever and someone asks for source. Then you say, "Verified scientists said this! Checkmate!"

I'm not saying you can't trust any evidence because of muh authority, most of us here have enough common sense to respect the experts, I hope and it's not like we have any other choice. Just pointing it out

>you people
>biased examples of fallacies
kek
bait
kys faggot
you don't deserve argument when you're shittalking like that
>caption: road downie
quite fits the reddit americans on this board
America deserves another 9/11

Again, the source of the claims is not what matters. It is the content.
"That trusted source could be a well respected expert."
X is a trusted expert and says the Earth is at the centre of the Universe; we know to respect the trusted authority.

this place is literally the definition of a hugbox
>A hugbox is a derogatory term for an environment, usually on the internet, in which a group with similar interests gathers to discuss topics in what they intend to be a safe, comforting, and confrontation-free environment.
The only liberals on here are either baiting Drumpf-posters or lefty-pol invaders, who both end up being saged and called shills
>What they intend to be a "safe space" almost always turns into a circle-jerk of forced consensus and ends with every member repeatedly expressing the exact same opinion to each other, no matter the topic.
nationalism, populism good. liberalism bad
>Since the community is founded on unconditional love and support no matter how much of a tool a person is, these communities tend to attract tools and rational and useful advice is usually a rarity.
self explanatory.
keep being delusional though spicanon

Please provide a revised argument with accurate definitions. Specifically, "you people", "your thinking".

Context would be greatly appreciated; i.e. what the fuck are you on about?

This clears it up a bit better. This is getting into semantics, but the fact that the content is more important than the source is not that true. One should look for unbiased sources but in a way we're appealing to its source because it claims to be unbiased, which would beg the question "how do we know it's any more unbiased than X?"

>The only liberals...
fallacy, you have no statistics on that
>nationalism...
>there is only one nationalism
>only one populism
>only one liberalism
>i can throw these vague terms together and claim i know that everyone on this board thinks the same way
>self explanatory
lmfao people get told to kill themselves as the useless trash they are daily but of course pol is founded on unconditional love :^)

noice

The only hugbox here are the T_D and newfags who joined because of Trump and the retards who keep fucking with Shia. This is shown when Trump ordered the Syria strike. T_D plebs try to shut people down.

lol read the sticky

>complains about bantz
>calls me "spicanon"

This is how I confirmed the bait.

The whole point is, most of us don't come to Sup Forums, of all places, and not expect "confrontation". Nothing is stopping liberals from trolling, arguing, etc. which has been my point all along.

>but the fact that the content is more important than the source is not that true.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Not true. What matters is what is said, not who says it. It's wrong to say that a source is necessarily biased, or to base your conclusion solely ON the source.

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

...

>Make chart of a ton of fallacies in debate

>Accuse other side of using X one to counter Y point

>Try to discredit other sides arguement

People are full of logical fallacies, "appealing to fear" for example has been used for centuries to do both good and evil. Also, the base of morality is "common practice." If in your society, killing someone once they reached 60 was common practice, than your society would not consider it immoral.

>this place is literally the definition of a hugbox

Unpopular opinions gets more exposure here. No one will ban you or censor you for that. Say what you want, nobody is preventing you, just don't expect pats on the back or upvotes.

You shits with your 'hurr, hugbox' are pissing me off. Literally everywhere else you will get banned and account canned if you don't tow the line, and yet you still crawl in here to try to project on this place.You are like the leftist shits who now buy 1984 because of Trump, even though they unknowingly used it as an instruction manual before.

>liberalism bad

It is coopted cancer that will be gone in three decades, one way or the other.

fuck off plebit

wikipedia tier arguments

This is indeed an argument.

No, this is indeed an argument.

Reddit's voting algorithm is designed to keep anything that is not 50% approved out of site, and when something that is not approved gets over 50% it gets deleted. That way only a small portion of things look deleted, and it does not appear that they have insane censorship.

>slippery slope (((fallacy)))

the final redpill

This, however, wasn't not.

Check this 8

No, this, however, wasn't not.

>tldr?
>mfw

What the heck is this?

just here to drop this

newfag?

>The whole point is, most of us don't come to Sup Forums, of all places, and not expect "confrontation". Nothing is stopping liberals from trolling, arguing, etc. which has been my point all along.
the founder of this site even called Sup Forums a containment board. Every board on Sup Forums calls Sup Forums a contaiment board, no matter how much you wish it wasn't true.
Just look at libertarians vs natsocs threads. people were claiming they were false flags carried out by shareblue to "divide us". Any kind of analysis into the accepted ideologies of this place are met with accusations of divide and conquer and shilling. Same with criticism of Trump, it's being called a false flag by a lot of newfriends. Also you are a subhuman spic, I was just pointing that out because you are a genetically inferior mudblood and several IQ points lower than I am, so grasping concepts are more difficult for someone like you.
>"nigger hate thread"
>"trump general"
>"is X white?"
>"lets troll shia lebouf"
>"a sjw said something on twitter, well Sup Forums?"
>"WE WUZ"
>"SWEDEN YES"
>"memeball thread"
truly intellectual

Welcome to the adult world children where everything is faked and everything's a racquet

This is some advanced disguised shilling, seriously:
Look at the examples for the appeals that are more negative - Appeal to emotions, Faulty Deduction, for example:

>Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches.
>faith in god is like believing in santa claus and the tooth fairy.
>recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by radical Islamic groups. therefore all terrorists are muslims.

Those are meant to plant those ideas in your head as bad thinking, although there is logic to it - the context of emotions and fallacy in the titles make it seem less true and valuable.

And of course, so you would buy this shilling, they give some other points around the entire post to give you the feeling they're on your side and believe in the same things you do, for example:
>Those young men rioted because they lacked morally responsible fathers.
>that's perhaps true for you. but its not true for me
>this bank has some problems with corruption. But there's nothing going on here that doesn't go on in all the other banks.
^ this one is written in the Appeal to the Mind, as to present it as more highly logical and make you accept it as a normal thing that should exist because of that context.

I'm quite tired of copying all of thsee, so TLDR: this post gives examples of cases in which it "supports" our approach, and at the same time it is trying to label some of them as retarded by giving it a context of emotion-based 'logic' and fallacy written in big letters on top of it. 10/10 shilling.

best ally btfos the "intellectual" amerifat

I didn't know, I swear.

>truly intellectual

Did I say anything about intellectual. I was reacting to a cocksucker who once again came in charging with 'hughbox' nonsense.
You don't like those threads then don't participate. If everyone did it they would die off.
And if you don't like 'blue shill' screaming then disregard it as a spam and look for comments with different approach.
Nobody is preventing you. If you don't like it then pss to Facebook for really free intellectual discussion.

Fucking faggot.

>the founder of this site even called Sup Forums a containment board.
he also said feminist witches would not destroy our bastion of free speech
your god emperor mootykins is a flip flopper!!!!

Seems like someone is on a proxy.
A great Rabbi you'll be Shlomo goldstein.

>posts a list of fallacies
>list does not mention one of the most commonly used fallacy — tu quoque

>m-muh IQ race
I get concepts just fine, burgerfag. For someone who shuns the strawmanses and le ad homos, you sure love doing it.

Whether or not people react with shilling doesn't support the fact that this is a hugbox and it just proves my point. The fact that the anons get to "shill", "troll" or whatever the fuck is enough proof this isn't a t_D tier safe space meant to avoid hurting your fee-fees

>You don't like those threads then don't participate. If everyone did it they would die off.
>And if you don't like 'blue shill' screaming then disregard it as a spam and look for comments with different approach.

>implying I don't already do that
>implying I come here for discussion and debate in the first place
I only participate in larp threads and the occasional meta thread where there is actual discussion going on. However you would have to be blind to not admit the majority of Sup Forums discussions are massive circle jerks.
why are you so angry new fag? is it because you have the ugliest european flag design that looks like a south american country?

no u

Too cocky?

...

There is pro homosexuality statements in there

*too

*pro gay marriage
there's a difference
or are you next level shilling, faggot
>youre against gay marriage
>thus against homosexuality
kys

>can't pick up on satire
wew lad

and the shilling fad does support the hugbox comment. i'll make this easy for you ese, imagine if there was a marketplace with a bunch of taco trucks. one taco truck decides he doesn't like the other taco stands particular brand of tacos and starts telling people that his tacos are poisoned. the majority of people believe the taco merchant and stop eating from the "poisoned" taco stand. More and more taco stands start accusing others of selling poison tacos. Soon enough you have a divided group of customers that only eat from one taco stand and refuse to take a bite of the poisoned tacos, despite the fact that they see others freely eating from them.

(YOU) posting about fallacies on 4skinz is fellatious.

t.faggot

...

inverse fallacy. See what I mean. His implicit argument is homosexual marriage -> homosexuality, not ~homosexual marriage -> ~homosexuality. kys you faggot abomination.

>implying anyone can exclusively eat the "unpoisoned" taco when the "poisoned" taco is so much more prevalent and at times forced down your throat

>Fuck off, Marx was wrong, get over it.
Fuck yeah. Reason is reason. It's a singular thing. It's not a chart of three dozen rules to memorize and follow, OP.

It's self-evident to me that burgers are not people, desu.

this is exactly what the taco merchants in my analogy would say to their customers.

>I don't agree with x thing
>therefore it is not valid to use x thing in an example of a fallacious argument

Your analogy is awful, like most.

...

t. taco merchant

>id
>jQ

Man, seen a ton of JQ in IDs lately

but logic does have rules. so does language. without such rules, there would be no communication or even thought. you're able to communicate without sounding like a schizo because of most such rules you have innate knowledge. but people fuck up nonetheless and stay stupid shit. so the rules were made explicit, as were case that break those rules, in the form of defined fallacies.
It's the same thing with math. You can't always just into numbers right quick and wing it through everything like some kind of asshole.

>tu quoque
no you're the cuck

THINK AS I TELL YOU TO THINK OR ELSE