For the best introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology set, available worldwide on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics & Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
Where do the eyes lead? Lol Bet that was a days conversation on the production side. To insert or ... Not to insert. Talk about Philosophy. Why was the wrinkle out there? Or? Was it not put there? I'd say this. Who was the person who brought up the topic and why? Who are they? Shy from the that rabbit hole..lol
So like, if so much of philosophical debate is based on fallacy, especially in politics, then how do we decide which side of a debate is essentially more “correct” than another? This video basically left me with a mindset of “the only way to avoid fallacy in debate is to just not debate” because the only debate I’ve ever seen is entirely based on these fallacies
Political debates are polluted with fallacies. Philosophical debates typically have less. When the people know what they are doing that is. Also a lot of people point out fallacies that aren’t really there and they try to call out their interlocutor under false fallacies.
As someone who is of *very* strong political beliefs, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of political beliefs are based on emotions, and emotions are frequently the antithesis of logic. A *true* logical argument is a thesis statement supported by evidence statements. For example, and it took me a bit to think of one that avoided the politics, "Speeding can be dangerous because cars are designed to be driven at certain maximum speeds, and exceeding that speed can make a car more difficult to control. Further, as speed increases, the energy of motion increases with the square of the speed, causing potential damage from a loss of control impact to increase geometrically." Thesis: Speeding can be dangerous. Evidence 1: speeding can cause loss of control. Evidence 2: crashes cause more damage at higher speeds. Does this help you feel better about potentially debating folks? (Ahh, yes; "Feel" as in emotion... :)
Great introduction to Fallacies I time stamped each Fallacy so it's easier to link to someone who doesn't realize their making a Fallacy. Strawman Fallacy 0:40 False Cause Fallacy 1:37 Appeal to Emotion Fallacy 2:15 Slippery Slope Fallacy 2:43 Ad hominem Fallacy 3:16 To Quoque Fallacy 3:53 Loaded Question Fallacy 4:42 Burden of Truth Fallacy 5:08 Bandwagon Fallacy 5:39 Appeal to Authority Fallacy 6:09 Black and White Fallacy 6:36 Question begging fallacy 6:59 Fallacy Fallacy 7:37
These are informal fallacies. They are context dependent and not necessarily fallacious. For example, the appeal to authority is not necessary fallacious. It is only fallacious when you are trying to use it in a deductive argument. But when used in a inductive argument it is not fallacious at all.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. He loved you that much he sacrificed his life for you, he died for you and loved you so much that he didnt want you to take the punishment of sins and go to hell, Jesus took the Punishment of your sins so you wouldnt have to, all of us deserve HELL because we are sinners but because Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross for us we could be saved if we just put our faith in him and start living for him and submitting our lives to him and to REPENT OF OUR SINS. He loved you that deeply and that much. He literally sacrificed his life for me and for you and for everyone. Whoever accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ Dying for our Sins you will be saved, Believe in Jesus Christ and have faith in him, Submit your life to him. He will give you true happiness and true joy, he loves you so much and i love you aswell. He died for you, he rose back from the dead 3 days after his death. He defeated Sin and death. Now its up to you to decide if you want to accept the Love and the Gospel and submit your life to him and follow him and turn away from your sins and REPENT AND SIN NO MORE!
I think a video like this is so IMPORTANT to watch from people from all walks of life. Online is a treasure trove of the above fallacies taken out of context with no means to an end, and people not understanding the principles of how arguments, reasoning and information should be interpreted. The bandwagon fallacy is everywhere: Just because something is popular and everyone is doing it so it makes it right/good or true. People lack logic because that requires using your brain, which we know is a rare effort these days. Just like the people who believe anything are the same ones who “appeal to authority” - This fallacy is so common, because some of not most people believe that of it comes from “an authority” it automatically makes it right and valid. The same people in the same breath would say for you to “never question authority”. Which links nicely into the “false dilemma fallacy” where online war battles running rampant everywhere. Everything is usually not a matter of “this” or “that” but rather in reality, it’s a combination of small factors from each, which contrasts into a grand accumulation of something totally different. Presented with either or choices usually results in looking for answers outside of what is being presented. We live in an endless amount of choices world, that should not deter you when making decisions based on logic. Ad Hominem: linked to above. What ends up happening is when two arguments clash, people end up attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. This is a low blow, because it loses all validity to begin with if it results in attacking the wrong thing. It’s either that or the next fallacy on the Texas Sharpshooter: where a person cherry picks on a particular point and chooses to expand on that because it back up “their” claim contrary to evidence. Another common fallacy is that of “sunk cost” fallacy. And the reason why it’s common, it’s because people operate out of their past and from fear, so for eg: A person a bit of a distance to go to a shop only to see that the shop is closed, but they check their phone to see that another shop is open only a few blocks down, so they think to themselves, well I’ve already walked this far, I might as well walk some more to go to the shop. In their mind they are making a good choice because they have already spent time and effort to walk down, without using the idea of reasoning and all rationalities of choice goes out the window, that if they wanted to do that to begin with. (If you told the same person to go to the second shop they now plan to go to, 9 times out of 10 they would’ve not even walk down in the 1st place). Lastly the “fallacy fallacy” states that a point or argument presented based on your own assumptions is automatically false, which is a poor reasoning in an argument, because even if the argument is poorly reasoned its conclusion can still happen to be true.
Don't forget the fallacy fallacy. My wife uses Tuqouque and emotional fallacies all the time but she's still sometimes right, I'd be wrong to ignore her because of her poor reasoning. She still has a true conclusion.
@@PhilosophyVibe have to admit I missed it. I'm glad you put it in. I have question, if you wouldn't mind indulging me. I've been trying to work this out. How does the fallacy fallacy effect the interpretation of the other fallacies. And is it alright to point out fallacious arguements if the speaker may still be true. That is if the arguements is sound but not valid. Where do you draw the line to point out a fallacy?
@@mikeshoults4155 This is a good question, if all Fallacies need to be pointed out, but by that very logic so does the fallacy fallacy, and by pointing out a fallacy you are thereby committing a fallacy - don’t you just love Philosophy. I would argue that Fallacies need to be pointed out as an error in delivery rather than an error in conclusion. In a mathematics exam (as far as I can remember) you are awarded points for the right answer as well as showing your working out. If you have the correct answer but somehow made errors in your working out (or did not show your working out) this would cost you points. I would argue this principle should be applied to logic and to Philosophy. So to automatically think a fallacy reaches the wrong conclusion is a fallacy in itself, however should you be arguing with someone who uses a fallacy it would be wise to mention that it is a fallacy and ask for the argument to be reformulated. Do not consider the conclusion of a fallacy false, just maybe do not consider it at all until a sound and valid argument can be delivered.
Well, all this means you practically cant say anything logically coherent. Everybody's argument is defective to some extent. There are no perfect truths only degrees of perfection. If kurt godel's theorem is correctly inferred, then you can either be perfectly consistent in *your expression* but incomplete in your substantiation for *that* expression or you can stay incomplete in your expressions but be consistent in your substantiation for that expression.
To say there are no truths is a contradiction itself, it is stating as true there are no truths. To 'fit' the logic by applying the term degrees of perfection is contradictory, as perfection is in and of itself not a degree, but the highest form/function of a material or immaterial truth, i.e, the earth goes around the sun is a truth (material truth), love, justice, hate (immaterial truths), these things exist because they are known as conceived in the intellect.
An amazing video that will be great for all ages and even transcend time since this is great knowledge for everyone to improve in relaying and understanding each other or topics! S/o y’all doing great work for humanity
Absolutely. Wonder if anyone who 'enjoys the debate". Knows this. I believe yes. I've saved this for further studying . This is more valuable than most realize
The only one I've heard of is the straw man and the tu quoque (or hypocrisy) fallacy. My memory is quite poor, but I'll be sure to reference your video from time to time whenever I get into an argument with people.
One thing I don't hear people mentioning is that the slippery slope it's self is not a fallacy, but it's the superstitious assumption that there is going to be a slippery slope is the fallacy.
Interesting, but think about the example they gave for Slippery Slope; the argument against changing the definition of marriage. Back when that issue was bit in political discussions, those who opposed gay marriage claimed that "Now it's marriage, next, they'll be coming after your kids!" Defenders of gay marriage called that a slippery slope argument (and by definition, is most assuredly was), but what's going on in schools now? (... And Disney, and Target, and Bud Light, and, and, and...)
This is tricky. So if you use any of these in your argument then that arguments logic isnt solid enough to make a case but if someone uses any of these fallacys against you the fallacy fallacy tells you you cant use them to dismiss their arguments. So .... what the hell then is there any value to paying attention to these at all?
This is a good question, if all Fallacies need to be pointed out, but by that very logic so does the fallacy fallacy, and by pointing out a fallacy you are thereby committing a fallacy - don’t you just love Philosophy. I would argue that Fallacies need to be pointed out as an error in delivery rather than an error in conclusion. In a mathematics exam (as far as I can remember) you are awarded points for the right answer as well as showing your working out. If you have the correct answer but somehow made errors in your working out (or did not show your working out) this would cost you points. I would argue this principle should be applied to logic and to Philosophy. So to automatically think a fallacy reaches the wrong conclusion is a fallacy in itself, however should you be arguing with someone who uses a fallacy it would be wise to mention that it is a fallacy and ask for the argument to be reformulated. Do not consider the conclusion of a fallacy false, just maybe do not consider it at all until a sound and valid argument can be delivered.
I would not hold it to be correct that emotional appeal has NO place in a debate, it just can't be the foundation of the debate. Emotions are perfectly valid things, just not something to be generalized. Just because you feel one way doesn't mean the other person does or must however it can prompt the other person to reconsider certain aspects of their position but it often is taken beyond a reasonable bound and just destroys the debate. Tu Quoque restated: Someone else's bad behavior does not justify your own bad behavior. B&W fallacy is also called a "false dilemma". It is also closely related to the straw man argument. If you want to really study the various logical fallacies, you'd do well to listen to political speeches. They are full of them and every one discussed here has been used in some single speeches.
That's what I was thinking. God is real. Our DNA and all life is coded, designed. Chaos cannot create order and even with all of our advanced technologies, it's impossible to purposely create life let alone randomly. Abandon your price for true peace and joy and you'll find God lives in you and loves more than a person is capable of loving. God IS love.
Here's why tu quoque isn't a fallacy. Say person A shoots person B. Person B says nothing about it, goes on with their day. Time goes by, person B shoots person A and person A exclaims: "You bastard! You shot me!" To which person B responds: "You shot me first, what's your problem?" Is person B being fallacious or illogical here? I don't think they are.
McDonalds doesn't cause violence is correct. However Popeye's Chicken, if and when it runs out of chicken sandwiches, does lead to predictable violence.
Fallacy fallacy makes debate lead to paradox. Imagine this situation. You use a fallacy to reach a conclusion. But i couldn't negate your conclusion by point out your fallacy. So you continue use that fallacy to support. If i want to negate, i have to going back to your base, and prove it wrong. So in the end, you push the burden of proof to my side. What a mess
You are using the straw man fallacy when you tell me that life isn't about money. That doesn't mean I can't have a home. And it also doesn't mean that I can't get paid for the work that you use of mine.
@@Lucylou7070 Can you please elaborate on what you mean? My point is that when making a claim about something its up to the one making the claim to prove it ideally through direct evidence or at least a good case for it through indirect evidence.
Your videos are chock full of left-wing taking points! I’m willing to bet that while you guys proclaim the virtues of logic, your left-wing bent will compel you to argue that a man ca be a woman just by claiming it, huh? 😂😂😂
Begging the question: Atheist : Faith is wrong because it is stupid atheism is right because it is smart. Believer : how do know? Atheist : because I am smart cause I am atheist therefore what i am saying must be true.
Atheist: Faith is not a vaild argument for making truth claims. Strawman & ad hominem to deflect from the point: Believer: You're just saying that because you think you're smart.
For the best introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
Volume 3 - Ethics & Political Philosophy
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
The madman fallacy: just because a person is mad, doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong.
The wrinkle in the carpet is lowkey driving me crazy
Where do the eyes lead?
Lol
Bet that was a days conversation on the production side.
To insert or ... Not to insert.
Talk about Philosophy.
Why was the wrinkle out there?
Or?
Was it not put there?
I'd say this. Who was the person who brought up the topic and why?
Who are they?
Shy from the that rabbit hole..lol
🤣
The wrinkle in the carpet is high key nit bothering me at all
I'm more annoyed at the coffee maker location.
YOU JUST RUINED THE VIDEO FOR ME WHY
Now, THIS should be shown in schools.
These videos are very clear, descriptive and direct. I love these videos!
Thank you so much, glad you like them :)
This teaches us communication skills.
So like, if so much of philosophical debate is based on fallacy, especially in politics, then how do we decide which side of a debate is essentially more “correct” than another? This video basically left me with a mindset of “the only way to avoid fallacy in debate is to just not debate” because the only debate I’ve ever seen is entirely based on these fallacies
Political debates are polluted with fallacies.
Philosophical debates typically have less. When the people know what they are doing that is. Also a lot of people point out fallacies that aren’t really there and they try to call out their interlocutor under false fallacies.
As someone who is of *very* strong political beliefs, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of political beliefs are based on emotions, and emotions are frequently the antithesis of logic.
A *true* logical argument is a thesis statement supported by evidence statements. For example, and it took me a bit to think of one that avoided the politics, "Speeding can be dangerous because cars are designed to be driven at certain maximum speeds, and exceeding that speed can make a car more difficult to control. Further, as speed increases, the energy of motion increases with the square of the speed, causing potential damage from a loss of control impact to increase geometrically."
Thesis: Speeding can be dangerous.
Evidence 1: speeding can cause loss of control.
Evidence 2: crashes cause more damage at higher speeds.
Does this help you feel better about potentially debating folks?
(Ahh, yes; "Feel" as in emotion... :)
Very informative. Well done guys.
Thank you 😀
Great introduction to Fallacies
I time stamped each Fallacy so it's easier to link to someone who doesn't realize their making a Fallacy.
Strawman Fallacy
0:40
False Cause Fallacy
1:37
Appeal to Emotion Fallacy
2:15
Slippery Slope Fallacy
2:43
Ad hominem Fallacy
3:16
To Quoque Fallacy
3:53
Loaded Question Fallacy
4:42
Burden of Truth Fallacy
5:08
Bandwagon Fallacy
5:39
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
6:09
Black and White Fallacy
6:36
Question begging fallacy
6:59
Fallacy Fallacy
7:37
Much appreciated.
These are informal fallacies. They are context dependent and not necessarily fallacious. For example, the appeal to authority is not necessary fallacious. It is only fallacious when you are trying to use it in a deductive argument. But when used in a inductive argument it is not fallacious at all.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. He loved you that much he sacrificed his life for you, he died for you and loved you so much that he didnt want you to take the punishment of sins and go to hell, Jesus took the Punishment of your sins so you wouldnt have to, all of us deserve HELL because we are sinners but because Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross for us we could be saved if we just put our faith in him and start living for him and submitting our lives to him and to REPENT OF OUR SINS. He loved you that deeply and that much. He literally sacrificed his life for me and for you and for everyone. Whoever accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ Dying for our Sins you will be saved, Believe in Jesus Christ and have faith in him, Submit your life to him. He will give you true happiness and true joy, he loves you so much and i love you aswell. He died for you, he rose back from the dead 3 days after his death. He defeated Sin and death. Now its up to you to decide if you want to accept the Love and the Gospel and submit your life to him and follow him and turn away from your sins and REPENT AND SIN NO MORE!
But that's the point, in absence of an elavuative framework of how they're true, these arguments stand fallacious.
This video is important, and honestly, I wish schools showed this in class.
Not really. There are contradictions in the video like I’ve mentioned in my comment above.
@@user-ze3fv3un5cwhat was it
Your list will help us avoid these Fallacies and call them out when applied by others. Great Job & Valuable Channel!
Thank you very much 😀
I think a video like this is so IMPORTANT to watch from people from all walks of life.
Online is a treasure trove of the above fallacies taken out of context with no means to an end, and people not understanding the principles of how arguments, reasoning and information should be interpreted.
The bandwagon fallacy is everywhere:
Just because something is popular and everyone is doing it so it makes it right/good or true. People lack logic because that requires using your brain, which we know is a rare effort these days.
Just like the people who believe anything are the same ones who “appeal to authority” -
This fallacy is so common, because some of not most people believe that of it comes from “an authority” it automatically makes it right and valid. The same people in the same breath would say for you to “never question authority”.
Which links nicely into the “false dilemma fallacy” where online war battles running rampant everywhere.
Everything is usually not a matter of “this” or “that” but rather in reality, it’s a combination of small factors from each, which contrasts into a grand accumulation of something totally different. Presented with either or choices usually results in looking for answers outside of what is being presented.
We live in an endless amount of choices world, that should not deter you when making decisions based on logic.
Ad Hominem: linked to above.
What ends up happening is when two arguments clash, people end up attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. This is a low blow, because it loses all validity to begin with if it results in attacking the wrong thing.
It’s either that or the next fallacy on the Texas Sharpshooter: where a person cherry picks on a particular point and chooses to expand on that because it back up “their” claim contrary to evidence.
Another common fallacy is that of “sunk cost” fallacy.
And the reason why it’s common, it’s because people operate out of their past and from fear, so for eg:
A person a bit of a distance to go to a shop only to see that the shop is closed, but they check their phone to see that another shop is open only a few blocks down, so they think to themselves, well I’ve already walked this far, I might as well walk some more to go to the shop.
In their mind they are making a good choice because they have already spent time and effort to walk down, without using the idea of reasoning and all rationalities of choice goes out the window, that if they wanted to do that to begin with. (If you told the same person to go to the second shop they now plan to go to, 9 times out of 10 they would’ve not even walk down in the 1st place).
Lastly the “fallacy fallacy” states that a point or argument presented based on your own assumptions is automatically false, which is a poor reasoning in an argument, because even if the argument is poorly reasoned its conclusion can still happen to be true.
Don't forget the fallacy fallacy. My wife uses Tuqouque and emotional fallacies all the time but she's still sometimes right, I'd be wrong to ignore her because of her poor reasoning. She still has a true conclusion.
Of course. This was the last Fallacy example in the video, 7:38
@@PhilosophyVibe have to admit I missed it. I'm glad you put it in.
I have question, if you wouldn't mind indulging me. I've been trying to work this out.
How does the fallacy fallacy effect the interpretation of the other fallacies. And is it alright to point out fallacious arguements if the speaker may still be true. That is if the arguements is sound but not valid. Where do you draw the line to point out a fallacy?
@@mikeshoults4155 This is a good question, if all Fallacies need to be pointed out, but by that very logic so does the fallacy fallacy, and by pointing out a fallacy you are thereby committing a fallacy - don’t you just love Philosophy.
I would argue that Fallacies need to be pointed out as an error in delivery rather than an error in conclusion. In a mathematics exam (as far as I can remember) you are awarded points for the right answer as well as showing your working out. If you have the correct answer but somehow made errors in your working out (or did not show your working out) this would cost you points. I would argue this principle should be applied to logic and to Philosophy.
So to automatically think a fallacy reaches the wrong conclusion is a fallacy in itself, however should you be arguing with someone who uses a fallacy it would be wise to mention that it is a fallacy and ask for the argument to be reformulated. Do not consider the conclusion of a fallacy false, just maybe do not consider it at all until a sound and valid argument can be delivered.
@@PhilosophyVibe well put. Thank you friend. I enjoy your videos. Thank you for posting.
@@mikeshoults4155 A pleasure, thank you for watching.
Well, all this means you practically cant say anything logically coherent. Everybody's argument is defective to some extent. There are no perfect truths only degrees of perfection.
If kurt godel's theorem is correctly inferred, then you can either be perfectly consistent in *your expression* but incomplete in your substantiation for *that* expression or you can stay incomplete in your expressions but be consistent in your substantiation for that expression.
To say there are no truths is a contradiction itself, it is stating as true there are no truths. To 'fit' the logic by applying the term degrees of perfection is contradictory, as perfection is in and of itself not a degree, but the highest form/function of a material or immaterial truth, i.e, the earth goes around the sun is a truth (material truth), love, justice, hate (immaterial truths), these things exist because they are known as conceived in the intellect.
An amazing video that will be great for all ages and even transcend time since this is great knowledge for everyone to improve in relaying and understanding each other or topics! S/o y’all doing great work for humanity
Thank you, glad you enjoyed :D
Absolutely. Wonder if anyone who 'enjoys the debate". Knows this. I believe yes.
I've saved this for further studying . This is more valuable than most realize
Just watched this video. Alot of people I’ve met need to see this.
The only one I've heard of is the straw man and the tu quoque (or hypocrisy) fallacy. My memory is quite poor, but I'll be sure to reference your video from time to time whenever I get into an argument with people.
Excellent...makes me wish I had joined the Debate Club in high school!
Thank you 😀
Thanks for the two new logical fallacies I've just learned👍👍
Pleasure, thanks for watching.
Love how the BLM movement uses the black or white fallacy in practice and in actuality lol
One thing I don't hear people mentioning is that the slippery slope it's self is not a fallacy, but it's the superstitious assumption that there is going to be a slippery slope is the fallacy.
Interesting, but think about the example they gave for Slippery Slope; the argument against changing the definition of marriage.
Back when that issue was bit in political discussions, those who opposed gay marriage claimed that "Now it's marriage, next, they'll be coming after your kids!"
Defenders of gay marriage called that a slippery slope argument (and by definition, is most assuredly was), but what's going on in schools now?
(... And Disney, and Target, and Bud Light, and, and, and...)
@@jeffanderson8165 My thoughts exactly.
Thank you for explaining these the way you do. It was easy for me to follow along and I actually learned a ton of things I've never understood before.
You're very welcome, glad it could help :)
Special pleading is one that should not have been missed.
Another first class video. Glad I found your channel to-day. Liked and subscribed. Thanks for posting.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
This is tricky. So if you use any of these in your argument then that arguments logic isnt solid enough to make a case but if someone uses any of these fallacys against you the fallacy fallacy tells you you cant use them to dismiss their arguments.
So .... what the hell then is there any value to paying attention to these at all?
This is a good question, if all Fallacies need to be pointed out, but by that very logic so does the fallacy fallacy, and by pointing out a fallacy you are thereby committing a fallacy - don’t you just love Philosophy.
I would argue that Fallacies need to be pointed out as an error in delivery rather than an error in conclusion. In a mathematics exam (as far as I can remember) you are awarded points for the right answer as well as showing your working out. If you have the correct answer but somehow made errors in your working out (or did not show your working out) this would cost you points. I would argue this principle should be applied to logic and to Philosophy.
So to automatically think a fallacy reaches the wrong conclusion is a fallacy in itself, however should you be arguing with someone who uses a fallacy it would be wise to mention that it is a fallacy and ask for the argument to be reformulated. Do not consider the conclusion of a fallacy false, just maybe do not consider it at all until a sound and valid argument can be delivered.
I would not hold it to be correct that emotional appeal has NO place in a debate, it just can't be the foundation of the debate. Emotions are perfectly valid things, just not something to be generalized. Just because you feel one way doesn't mean the other person does or must however it can prompt the other person to reconsider certain aspects of their position but it often is taken beyond a reasonable bound and just destroys the debate.
Tu Quoque restated: Someone else's bad behavior does not justify your own bad behavior.
B&W fallacy is also called a "false dilemma". It is also closely related to the straw man argument.
If you want to really study the various logical fallacies, you'd do well to listen to political speeches. They are full of them and every one discussed here has been used in some single speeches.
So all your examples, or most of them, are so POLITICALLY CORRECT! What about the inbuilt bias fallacy?
That's what I was thinking. God is real. Our DNA and all life is coded, designed. Chaos cannot create order and even with all of our advanced technologies, it's impossible to purposely create life let alone randomly. Abandon your price for true peace and joy and you'll find God lives in you and loves more than a person is capable of loving. God IS love.
THANK YOU
A pleasure :)
Have you ever seen batman and me in the same place at the same time? No? therefore im batman
thank you for arming me with knowledge
Pleasure, thank you for watching.
@ 0:31 That green book on the left, above the plant is illogically placed in the bookcase ...
Vow, that's a great effort! Very helpful.
Thank you :) Glad we could help.
The Fallacy Fallacy scenario made me giggle. Whoever denies the fact that exercise is good for you might not be all there mentally.
And black or white is better referred to as set dilemma
Informative video, but some of your examples could be better. What fallacy is that?
Here's why tu quoque isn't a fallacy.
Say person A shoots person B. Person B says nothing about it, goes on with their day. Time goes by, person B shoots person A and person A exclaims:
"You bastard! You shot me!" To which person B responds:
"You shot me first, what's your problem?"
Is person B being fallacious or illogical here? I don't think they are.
Great video guys!
Thank you!
Very good video, very informative, well done, proud of you. (:
Thank you!
@@PhilosophyVibe You're welcome. (:
Thanks guys! much appreciated
Pleasure, thanks for watching.
So when the UK government rejects the legalisation of cannabis because "drugs are harmful" - they're commiting a strawman fallacy.
Technically right about the slippery slope tho
...and why you should use them.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy in practice.
Interesting
Nice Video! Thank you.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Your videos are really awesome
Thank you very much!
Thanks for this po.i understands it well, sobra 😍
Glad we could help.
examples could be better but i got them , thanks
Hmmmm.. Interesting
very good video!
Thank you very much :)
what about appeal to people?
Is God of the Gaps a fallacy?
McDonalds doesn't cause violence is correct. However Popeye's Chicken, if and when it runs out of chicken sandwiches, does lead to predictable violence.
Good one!
Fallacy fallacy makes debate lead to paradox.
Imagine this situation. You use a fallacy to reach a conclusion. But i couldn't negate your conclusion by point out your fallacy. So you continue use that fallacy to support. If i want to negate, i have to going back to your base, and prove it wrong. So in the end, you push the burden of proof to my side. What a mess
Holy fuck im smart again
Qh, big brain mode
Fallacy fallacy
No one uses that as there base argument
Their
3:04
Well, you won't believe this if i told you but in 2023...
No one is marrying objects???
@@Potato-so6zr lmao
Sex dolls?
Anime figurines?
A literal cardboard cut out?
@@DilloYT-jl8fw You really think they’re going to get a priest or their parents to watch them marry a body pillow? 🤣
👋🏾❤️
:)
These fallacies have nothing to do with logic
You are using the straw man fallacy when you tell me that life isn't about money. That doesn't mean I can't have a home. And it also doesn't mean that I can't get paid for the work that you use of mine.
Have you *stopped* doing drugs?
I think the character w/out beard is hot. Hot voice too❤
Is not gay marriage an appeal to emotion and abortion a slippery slope? This video needs some quality both in the visual and argument.
Please straighten the rug
But mc Donald's does cause crime.
Burden of proof? Why does the burden of proof for God's existence lie with the theist?
Because they are the one making a claim and if something can be claimed without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.
@@thegoldendiamond9142 Yes - just reframe the issue, and the burden of proof is with the atheist.
@@Lucylou7070 Can you please elaborate on what you mean? My point is that when making a claim about something its up to the one making the claim to prove it ideally through direct evidence or at least a good case for it through indirect evidence.
Eat McDonald’s, do crime.
this video is full of fallacies
Yeah examples
@@user9999-z 😁
great pun
Your videos are chock full of left-wing taking points! I’m willing to bet that while you guys proclaim the virtues of logic, your left-wing bent will compel you to argue that a man ca be a woman just by claiming it, huh? 😂😂😂
Begging the question:
Atheist : Faith is wrong because it is stupid atheism is right because it is smart.
Believer : how do know?
Atheist : because I am smart cause I am atheist therefore what i am saying must be true.
Atheist: Faith is not a vaild argument for making truth claims.
Strawman & ad hominem to deflect from the point:
Believer: You're just saying that because you think you're smart.
@@ReclusiveAsta I'm having a huge feeling of deja vu from those two comments. It somehow feels like I've seen them somewhere else before.
Believer - it's true because I say it's true and if you don't believe me,.you will suffer for all eternity
Atheist - OK believer!