What is the fallacy? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









What is the fallacy?

Debate Information

Here is a game where we try and make fallacies ourselves and then the other guys have to point out the fallacy and then it's their turn to make a fallacy. Ok, I will start. 

There is currently a scientific consensus on the issues with respect to global warming.
Now, the higher the scientific consensus surrounding the issues of global warming the less likely the science on it is to be very strong.
Therefore, Climate change isn't as bad as they say it is.

Now it's your turn.






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    p1 There is currently a scientific consensus on the issues with respect to global warming.
    p2 Now, the higher the scientific consensus surrounding the issues of global warming the less likely the science on it is to be very strong.
    => Therefore, Climate change isn't as bad as they say it is.
    This argument is a fallacy of contradiction and is non-sequitur:

    Scientific consensus is defined as an idea that has strong scientific support, so the second premise is false.

    The conclusion does not follow from the premises and contains a leap of logic.
    ZeusAres42LiamThePersonDeeSkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 701 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 That's more of an outrageously incorrect second premise than a fallacy. 

    Here's my fallacy, credited to our old friend ChristWarrior: 

    Happy_KillbotZeusAres42Dee
  • @ZeusAres42 That's more of an outrageously incorrect second premise than a fallacy. 

    Here's my fallacy, credited to our old friend ChristWarrior: 



    This is an appeal to popularity.

    Here is another one from me.

    My uncle said we should not take the covid vaccine.
    My uncle is a very clever guy.
    Therefore, we should not take the covid vaccine.



  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  

    Now, the higher the scientific consensus surrounding the issues of global warming the less likely the science on it is to be very strong. 
    That is a fallacy. The opposite is true. The higher the scientific consensus surrounding the issues of global warming the MORE likely the science on it is to be very strong. It is an appeal authority. In this case, it is used to confuse the reader and convince them that the person who made the argument must be correct because the reader does not understand it, and obviously the person who made the statement must know more because they were able to make a statement the reader didn't understand. But all the statement did was confuse the reader. It can be considered an artistic appeal to authority because it tries to appeal to authority to discredit the authority. 
     
     
  • anarchist100anarchist100 574 Pts   -   edited November 21
    I got one.

    You can't support banning guns unless you think the government is more trustworthy than everyone else, since they're the only one's who would own them.
    The government is special and totally not just a group of ordinary people and we can trust them.
    Therefor we need to ban guns.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    Here's one:

    Alice and Bob each have 1 liter of water which has been chilled to 1◦C.
    Alice adds her water to Bob's in the same container.
    Bob measures the temperature to be 1◦C.
    Bob the declares that 1 + 1 = 1.
    ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 ;
    You can't support banning guns unless you think the government is more trustworthy than everyone else, since they're the only one's who would own them.
    The government is special and totally not just a group of ordinary people and we can trust them.
    Therefor we need to ban guns.
    I think the fallacy is too much sarcasm
    ZeusAres42DeeLiamThePerson
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    Here’s two using the same fallacy ….

    I wonder if you really want to do this 

    What do you think people need about Charmix ?

  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Thats a good one does it fall under a statistical fallacy? It seems it may fall under more than one category?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4155 Pts   -   edited November 21
    A fallacy is an argument containing a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. Another way of saying it is that the premises allow for (an)other conclusion(s), but the author does not state them.

    Here is an example:

    "According to the principle of marginal utility, a dollar is valued more by a poor person than by a rich person."
    "Economical efficiency (i.e. maximization of the total amount of subjective value everyone has in their possession) is desirable."
    "Hence the right public policy is to equalize everyone's wealth".

    The problem with this argument is that the goal - economical efficiency - can, in principle, be achieved by more than one way, some ways possibly not involving any particular public policies whatsoever. Yet the author of this argument (in this case, me) does not address this and makes an unjustified conclusion.
    Furthermore, the (assumed) fact that a dollar is valued more by a poor person than by a rich person does not imply that the goods worth X dollars on the market are subject to the same relationship. A $1,000 bottle of exquisite rum may be worth far more than $1,000 to a rum connoisseur or to a collector, a bit less than $1,000 to a speculator, just a bit more than a $20 bottle of cheap rum to someone like me (who likes rum, but does not have a particularly refined taste), as much as the $8 bottle of cheap vodka from Walgreens to an alcoholic who just needs their fix, and nothing to someone who does not drink and does not have a license to sell alcohol - in fact, it might have negative value for them, as it takes away some space, and they are better off just throwing it out than keeping it.

    Now, fallacies, strictly speaking, can be found in almost every, even well-constructed, argument. In practice, it makes more sense to not analyze every argument mathematically, picking every word apart, but instead to pry out the essence of the argument and to see whether the essence of the conclusion is in accordance with it.
    In the argument stated above, the reasoning is not completely bonkers: the conclusion is not justified in the strict sense, but it makes sense as a practical public policy proposal (assuming we accept the premises - which I personally do not). So, instead of calling it a fallacy, it is more reasonable to just explain what the problems with the argument are.

    Another point to make here is that the premises being wrong do not make the argument a fallacy. I may say, "All elephants are green, therefore the elephant in my local zoo is green". The conclusion is wrong, but the argument is not a fallacy in itself: the conclusion clearly follows from the premise. The problem here is that the premise is demonstrably wrong. This argument is not a fallacy, but it is still erroneous.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @Dee ;
    Thats a good one does it fall under a statistical fallacy? It seems it may fall under more than one category?
    I wouldn't call it a statistical fallacy, and as far as I know it does only have 1 category that it falls under, although I am open to suggestions if you think there is another one.

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I wouldn't call it a statistical fallacy, and as far as I know it does only have 1 category that it falls under, although I am open to suggestions if you think there is another one.

    Ok thanks ,  so most likely it’s a scientific fallacy but which one  it is I wouldn’t know. I’m just curious if it does fall under other categories as I believe a lot of fallacious  statements do , but I’m not well up on such as  there are quiet a few 
  • One, 1 won one race.
    Two 1 won one too.
  • How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll lollypop?
    It's a hard candy that was meant to be sucked on.
  • How did the United States of American and the USSR remain super powers after haveing a space race that ended after reaching the moon? 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2100 Pts   -   edited November 21
    Here's one:

    Alice and Bob each have 1 liter of water which has been chilled to 1◦C.
    Alice adds her water to Bob's in the same container.
    Bob measures the temperature to be 1◦C.
    Bob the declares that 1 + 1 = 1.

    Ok, going to try and break this down.

    P1. One bottle of water each is chilled to 1◦C.
    P2. Both bottles are added together and the temperature is measured to be 1◦C.
    Therefore, 1+1 = 1.

    I cannot help but see a non-sequitur here. It does not follow that 1+1 = 1 based on 1 bottle of water chilled to 1◦C added to another bottle in another container that is also 1◦C. Possibly a false equivalence here also on Bob's part. It appears that Bob has assumed that what is going on here is equivalent to basic arithmetic arguments.



  • @ZeusAres42
    I believe the fallacy is that the temperature negated a letter of water going missing? @ Happy_Killbot.
  • @ZeusAres42

    My uncle said we should not take the covid vaccine.
    My uncle is a very clever guy.
    Therefore, we should not take the covid vaccine.
    Appeal to authority, methinks.



    Happy_KillbotZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    It's been a few days, and nobody guessed the fallacy, so I guess I might as well as reveal it

    Alice and Bob each have 1 liter of water which has been chilled to 1◦C.
    Alice adds her water to Bob's in the same container.
    Bob measures the temperature to be 1◦C.
    Bob the declares that 1 + 1 = 1.
     There are actually 2 fallacies here, a common informal logical fallacy, and a mathematical error.

    The informal fallacy is that the statement is ambiguous as the term "add" in this context means "to put together" but it does not necessarily mean the same thing as "+". 999/1000 times, this subtle distinction is irrelevant, however in this specific scenario it is quite relevant.

    The math insisted on by bob is also what is known as a howler. This is a correct answer which is derived from an incorrect or incomplete proof. Specifically, the error here is that temperatures are defined as an average, so when combining them you need to average the total energy available, meaning the correct equation might be something more like this:

    (T1*v1 + T2*v2) / vf = Tf

    where T represents the temperature, and v represents the volume of the container and v1 + v2 = vf.

    so, the correct equation would be (1*v+1*v) / 2*v = tf => 2 / 2 = tf => 1 getting us the right answer. The fact that the volume has effectively doubled is relevant to this equation, so no, 1 + 1 =/= 2 because we are representing something totally different.
    ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch