You cant use that argument because I said so

you cant use that argument because I said so

Filtered

ad hominem

hey man you really shouldn't snort all that crack, you can get addicted

MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY

Sometimes the slope really is slippery

It's more

if you keep pouring ketchup on the floor soon the floor will be entirely covered in ketchup.

There is no counter argument.

Argument from Authority?

a floor can have a hole, or be skewed in a way it will eventually flow out elsewhere rather than cover the entire floor

The concept isn't bad and you get a good explanation as to why each fallacy is indeed an issue with reasoning. But it's also true there are retards misusing it and thinking it's an auto-win button during arguments.

Slippery slope isn't simply making a direct "X then Y" prediction, it's specifically trying to force a certain chain of events and implying all of these will happen as a guaranteed consequence of each other, despite the fact there are other possibilities and they are equally, if not more than likely.
It would be like saying something like

you shouldn't use the internet because you might end up on Anon Babble, then one anon might invite you to a discord server, then you are going to get groomed by troons, then the troons get enough members to take over the world and destroy it

The fallacy here is that you could potentially justify any retarded claim or imposition by making up any remotely "possible" scenario.

you are a hypocrite

therefore the argument you were making is invalid

what is this fallacy called?

Basic ass ad hominem

Ad hominem I guess
But sometimes I think it is fair, it is so tiring when you’re discussing something and the other person starts arguing for something they don’t actually believe because it’s easier than their real position.

that's why common sense exists. in the same way you can use common sense to deduce that most floors will simply end up being covered in ketchup, is the same way you can use common sense to deduce that you will not be an exception to the regular pitfalls of a fucking crack addict if you go do crack.

fallacy fallacy

Ad hominem.
Rather than engaging with the argument itself you're attacking the person's character to try and invalidate it on principle, it's one of the most "valid" and well known fallacies since it's actually a fucking retarded way to argue rather than a nitpick over how you word things.

If you argue the person's a hypocrite in terms of what they're arguing about, I believe that's 'Tu quoque'

Close enough, but "tu quoque" is more about responding to somebody accusing you with "ok but you(or somebody else) did that too". It doesn't really disprove the fact you did the thing nor detract from the fact it might be considered unlawful, morally wrong, or whatever.

I see, thanks for the clarification

kek

Fun little game, pretty easy if you aren't the kind of guy who genuinely falls for internet bullshit but helpful otherwise.
The only real difficulty is mixing up fallacies, but you can tell when an argument has wrong reasoning.

Fucking excuse me? What is this bullshit?

A hasty generalization as it says.
Just because you got unlucky enough to receive two damaged packages in a row, it doesn't mean every single internet shop is bad.

Keep buying, goy, it's just a coincidence

If you buy two products and they're both damaged and you buy a third, you're a cuck

Picture of a boy and a girl

That may be true for you, but it's not true for me

"Valid"

FALSE, IT WAS RELATIVIST FALLACY

Uuuuuuuh

I need no game, i have Mr. Spock.
youtu.be/BUqMNVnELzE?si=VpDCAk-Y8uz29bkX

Re-read the statement.
It's one thing to say "I ordered twice from site X and they fucked up twice, so I might try site Y this time", but using that to claim you shouldn't ever use all online shops ever again is obviously hasty generalization.

its not referring to buying the same fucking product three times you monumental fucktard

What did anon mean by this

But it's also true there are retards misusing it and thinking it's an auto-win button during arguments.

Known as the fallacy fallacy

Yea. Unironically the most important one

you just moved the goalposts you fucking retard. goalpost factory. you fucked goalposted. I bet you play soccer, you bitchy gaslighter

No that's literally how the statement was worded.

he's using the gaslight fallacy on me.

It's not saying "I'm never ordering from this shop again" but from the whole internet, hence generalizing their bad experiences as the norm.

It's not saying "I'm never ordering from this shop again" but from the whole internet

And that's valid

it's like these guys don't even know that lived experiences are valid.

That's not a fallacy, that's abuse

And that's valid

Why is it valid? grouping all the shops together as if every one of them offer the same shit experience is valid?

It's highly disproportionate. Anedctoal evidence has a limited scope and cannot be weighted against something as big as the entire internet.

Trying to unlock all the glossary is annoying as fuck

Call that a phalluscy cos am about to rape this guy

If someone's saying the music is too loud then that implies they want it to be lowered. What the person is saying is redundant but it's not a fallacy.

he isn't saying the music is too loud you blind retard

It's not a strawman because there is no attempt to misinterpret your argument or weaken it, the person is literally just asking confirmation.

Ah.

asking to not turn up the music =/= asking them to turn it down
retard game

Talking to autistic people irl must be exhausting, do you guys really need this much clarification

Still it's not exactly a fallacy

It's not a strawman because there is no attempt to misinterpret your argument or weaken it

it's a statement not a question, it makes the assumption that i'm saying that and i'm not because i want the volume to stay as it is
there's literally nothing that would indicate a question
since the game is so wildly unpopular i'm assuming the creator is in this thread advertising his game so fix this in a update if youre reading this
ad hominem

It's the irrelevant conclusion fallacy, right? The two seem connected but it's just random.

irrelevant conclusion fallacy

Yea actually it could fit lol. The game doesn't have that yet it seems.

tu quoque

yo Tim Krief
make it so i'm able to see the questions i got wrong in the past

Lol I just did this because I was reading the thread.

Tim Krief i have finished your game
masturbated mentally, 6/10 would not buy
i also did this but i probably missed the popup because i was writing a post

i have finished your game

You just unlocked extreme difficulty actually.

Tim Krief, make it so i can turn the pages in the book before the animation is over it triggers my autism that i have to wait

i got good at debate and all it does is make normies hate you. you have much more success just validating people's bullshit

well it's under custom but whatever i can try depending on what's the gimmick
it's true, most people don't have enough humility

No matter how much ketchup is on the floor, it's not a slippery slope as long as the floor is flat.

never seen this shit, i give it up for today i hate learning

I watch le northenlion

fuck it i'm gonna continue my star trek binge instead of wasting time on here, am on season 7 of tng right now

slippery slope is

if you pour ketchup on the floor, then the amount of ketchup on the floor will increase exponentially even if you stop

this game was made by a 15 year old debate club kid lol

how to be a redditor, the quiz

Oh my science finally something for me to be based and epic in online debates!

reeee stop calling out my retarded arguments!

Are you implying reddittors makr arguments without fallacies?

I think he means its more that redditors are adept at evading discussion by pointing to fallacies.

64

what the fuck
is this a college course or something

Not exactly an issue with the game, but sometimes the difference between two fallacies is very slim and hardly significant when you already know the argument in question is fallacious.

More like phallusy xdddd benis

hasty

In what way is giving someone a second chance for them to buttfuck you "hasty" or even a "generalization". How many times do you get bit by a rattlesnake before you come to the conclusion that you shouldnt try to pet a rattlesnake?

people who sort our trash have good arguments as to why (you) should too, I can give you some.

valid

its only valid if you give the actual arguments you fucking faggot. otherwise you're appealing to them as an authority and hoping no one presses further. you also know for a fact if they had good arguments for (you) not sorting trash, and they got (you) to sort trash, then they wouldn't have a fucking job anymore.

for me it's appeal to triviality, the mark of an astroturfer

Eeeerm sweetie you're supposed to give every online shop a try, so what if you already lost over a hundred bucks from how unreliable it is? Just keep touching the stove.

Oh wait its saying hes never ordering anything through the whole of the internet again, why does this problem hinge on a singular word? Poor game design

This. Its objectively true. The only people who want it to not be true and argue against it are those that want to destroy their lives and have no push back. And on top of it, they genuinely believe that no one cares about them, so how dare you even talk to them about their issue that is clearly going to end in disaster? They create their own problems and refuse to acknowledge how they got there.

jumping to an absolute from an anecdote

if you tried this in a court of law, you'd get objection->sustained instantly.

slippery slope requires there to be no active involvement from anyone/anything to make things progress towards a conclusion. read: a large boulder rolling down a hill. what you're calling a slippery slope is actually progressively increasing amounts of people and money pushing a rock up a steeper and steeper hill.

You can construct a 500 word essay proving a redditor empirically wrong to the smallest detail and the redditor will point to you saying "poo poo head" 20 minutes ago, say "heh, ad hominem" and dodge the entire conversation.
If you point out a logical fallacy to dodge answering something else, you've lost
And Redditors love doing that

Its poor reasoning but the conclusion is more right than wrong. Even if you shop from a different online store they likely use 1 of the same 3 shippers. Its not "Online"s fault but it is a consequence of shopping online

i personally got bad results from x twice

therefore all x is bad

this is only valid reasoning if you are the only one doing it. or also trying to reproduce an experiment.

I don't get it, how it is considered "bad" to use it.
If my friend say shit like "Smoking is bad for you!" while smoking a fat blunt I'll call him a faggot and hypocrite. Practise what you preach first bitch, then lecture me about stuff

That's called fallacy fallacy and it's in the game.
If somebody tries to dismiss an argument just by saying it contains a fallacy you can call them out back. In this case they aren't even using the term properly because insulting somebody while still giving a proper argument is still fair game, purely in logical terms.
Ad hom would be my argument literally going "actshaully you are wrong because you are stupid", and NOT "here's why you are wrong [...] also you are stupid".

Fallacies are specifically about proper reasoning rather than conclusions.
You can reach correct conclusions with wrong reasoning or no reasoning at all by just guessing.

It does not detract from the objective value of the statement.
If a criminal says criminals are breaking the law, the statement is objectively correct regardless.

Yeah but (You) would be retarded to take advice from a hypocrite. Use your own brain

Well he is giving you correct advice either way. Logic is impersonal.

2+2=4

didn't you fail the last math course you took?

Well criminals are breaking the law

Then why did (You) break the law

Umm, that's none of your business, c-chud!

All of humanity are hypocrites, should people lie? No? And yet youve lied before....

SORRY CHUD YOU HAVE TO LET THEM SMASH YOUR PACKAGES OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE A PROPER SAMPLE SIZE

but you do have a proper sample size, the hundreds of millions of packages that aren't smashed.

Ad hom would be my argument literally going "actshaully you are wrong because you are stupid", and NOT "here's why you are wrong [...] also you are stupid".

Just watch literally any video on a topic rooted in science denial (flat earth, creationism, antivax etc.), watch someone debunking everything with the actual facts and then the response. 90% of the responses are "well I don't have to listen to any of that because you called me an idiot and that's ad hominem", it's something science communication struggles with a lot.

Well criminals are breaking the law

(you) broke the law, so aren't (you) a criminal too?

yes

It's logical fallacies, not moral fallacies.
"criminals break the law" is a true statement no matter who says it

'Fallacy' at this point is just a magic buzzword used in order to shut down an argument when you don't have an actual rebuttal.

any video on a topic rooted in science denial

debunking everything

those videos never debunk anything though. if one of them is foolish enough to post about it here, they eventually just get mad and start screaming about debonkers and them having no capacity for wonder or some shit.

It is very fucking funny seeing people get angry when they insult you, and you basically respond with

Damn, if I am a loser imagine what you are

It is so fucking childish yet it works more often than you would think.

According to what?

yes

Only reasonable people say that, most often they say shit like "It was an accident", "I'm a victim of circumstances", "It was only X amount of something" and other drivel
Yet they have the gull to be preachy about it even though not feeling any remorse

he was referring to the comments debunking the video

according to the fact the practice exists? according to the fact millions of others aren't experiencing the same things?

of course you can just attack the source of all contradicting evidence and suddenly you don't need to consider it at all. which means the earth is flat.

but they can say yes in a ton of different ways

nigger, the initial assertion isn't "being a criminal is bad"

I'm blind and didn't see So I retract all of my previous statements and apologize

the practice exists

What follows from this? That packages dont get smashed, yet mine are smashed disproving your theory

millions of others arent experiencing this

Appeal to consensus fallacy.

Appeal to authority

reading speed setting

this is nice. fallacious reasoning always causes my brain to just shut down.

Consensus is agreement/disagreement without proof, a million of non-smashed packages is proof it doesn't happen often by just shopping online.

millions of people verifiably having different results than (you) isn't an appeal to consensus. Its a fact.

some packages get smashed, so you shouldnt order anything

perfect solution fallacy

if everyone's packages always got smashed, online shopping wouldn't exist. this is hume's uniformity principle.

verifiable

Okay, demonstrate that for me, or do I just take your word on that?

Overly reductive strawman

we've done this thing for two generations, its time for change

valid

appeal to novelty
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

People being obsessed with fallacies and calling them out recently has been some of the funniest shit, I've gotta say.

Have fun asking a million people about their packages and verifying it personally.
And just saying you can't reasonably do that so it doesn't count is appealing to ignorance.

and here's what a reasonable person does

check product reviews

are most/all negative reviews about smashed packages? yes/no

yes: it is a problem at the source

no: find some way to talk to your neighbors ([shrieking intensifies]) and find out if they get smashed packages often. yes/no

yes: its a problem with the guy carrying the packages to your door, complain to shipper, use different shipper. if can't, use different source

no: its a problem with literally countless people between you and the source, complain to shipper, use different shipper, if can't use different source.

Uhm you can't just call me a faggot sweetea that's a fallacy ok?

strawman

I remember when "strawman" was the only fallacy ever pointed out.

this too is a fallacious line of thinking.

Imagine a strung out hooker says "smoking crack will ruin your life"
Do you think "she's full of shit, she's such a hypocrite"?

Argument from Retardery

152 replies

no mention of Loki's wager

My favorite just because a good third of Anon Babble threads are people just being retards about this concept

because its an easy deflection. its also basically never used correctly, as 99.9% of the time its someone inadvertently saying something didn't mean to say, and getting called on it.

though afterwards [loki's] lips were stitched shut by Brokkr as punishment for using tricky wordplay.

gee i wonder why this one doesn't come up often

look up image of norse dwarf

GEE I WONDER WHAT THIS IS REPRESENTING

Is 80% not slightly more than half?

I always laugh at retards who try to play the fallacy card when arguing on Anon Babble. Where do you think you fucking are, this isn't high school debate club, your rules don't matter for shit here, I will call you a retarded faggot for having retarded faggot opinions and you can either deal with it or concede and go cry like a bitch
You're not entitled to have your argument taken seriously

80% is 60% more than 50%

If you dont believe in God, your appeals to some kind of transcendental immutable logic is worthless to me and theres nothing you can do to change that

I'm going to drink this gallon of Dran-O because a hypocrite told me I shouldn't drink Dran-O

logic is internal consistency bro

If you call somebody a retarded faggot without any further argument you aren't even arguing back.
If you do that after offering some sort of rebuttal then it's not ad hominem.

Meds holy shit

I like the fallacy fallacy

tfw the draino community fails to gatekeep

This is sweet taste of salt from a man who has never ever won an argument on the internet, which is serious business by the way.

not an argument

this thread is full of actual retards

2 + 2 != 4 if you don't follow it up with inshallah

this is now my favorite fallacy

that's racist!

that's sexist!

that's misogynistic!

that's warmongering!

that's heresy!

all of these are the same fallacy

Cool opinion
Forever and ever amen

Faggot fallacy.

Ad Hominem! I'll have you know that I am very smart okay! My mummy says that every day! I bet you don't even know that bananas are a type of berry!!!!

t. lost the argument

being this assmad

lmao

i thought the example on the bottom left was one of those

fantasy race males vs their female counterpart

things before realizing it was a size comparison
this is my second post in the thread

your dick being 60% larger would not be a "slight increase."

when your intelligence far outclasses anyone else on this site so you are constantly comprehending things beyond the mental capacity of anyone else so they have no ability to even understand your arguments or even try to counter them

Its a harsh weight to bear being the smartest

Hypocrites are just weak willed faggots who have 0 willpower, the doesn't detract from the fact that what claim they make can still be objectively correct you moron.

my quarter incher pincher is now a little under half

WAOWWWWW!!!

Another ad hominem!!! See? I am too smart for you, I bet you're so dumb you don't evem know that the moon isn't made of cheese!

Bejitabro btw

Bfag btw

You have no evidence for the moon not being made of cheese that isnt appeal to "2 dudes who TOTALLY WENT THERE I SWEAR AND IF YOU SAY WE DIDNT WERE GONNA PUNCH YOU" Dinosaurs are also real because some fag in a labcoat found a buried bucket of chickenbones that sort of looked like a lizard

no pain, no gain

fallacious

what the fuck. you literally can't build muscle without "the burn."

Ah... the fallacy fallacy!

"I am very smart" the game

gain

women still dont like me

pain

It's awfully telling that Anon Babble is getting this upset about a game covering shit you should have learned in your 10th grade Public Speaking class.

you can verify the moon isn't made of cheese by how it reflects light, by how it orbits in a manner consistent with a much greater density than cheese, how it affects the tides in a manner that is only consistent with an orbital body much greater than cheese, etc.

t. Low IQ tard that can't form an argument and spergs out because of it

It doesn't take a genius to understand why ad hominems and strawmans contribute nothing to a debate and why they should be called out immediately like the bullshit they are

by how it reflects light

he doesnt know the 'really far away reflective cheese' phenomenon principle

Shame.

this is the guy who thinks every prehistoric animal is a dinosaur

We have nothing like that down here.
I learned about fallacies from the internet

your 10th grade Public Speaking class.

what the fuck third world hellhole has this?

he calls them dinosaurs despite the fact that they are neither terrible, nor lizards

We call em dragons and you papier-macheing a bunch of shit doesnt prove anything

it doesn't matter what shop you order from when they all move through the same courier service

Get sick twice from supermarket food

Uuuuhm goy trust the stats, you were just unlucky

Nah lol

Dragons? Those are fictional creatures from the bible, intellectuals like me only deal with facts and the fact of the matter is I'm smarter, harder, faster and stronger than you. You know why? Because in my infinite capacity for knowledge I know that true term for them is 恐竜 or Kyōryū for you uncultured ijins.

when tossing a coin, it is more likely to have 4 heads and a tail than five heads in a row

gambler's fallacy

4 heads and 1 tails has five permutations as opposed to the single permutation of five heads in a row

goes to same supermarket, doesn't try out others or other foods from different suppliers.

could i have prepared food wrong? no it is the supermarket!

bringing out the japanese

Haha fa-NOOOONOOOOONOOOOO!!!!!! SAVE ME!!!!!!

probability is half linguistics

Damn, it sure is unfair that [grocery store] shutdown after the e-coli outbreak, dont people know that its statistically unlikely to get e-coli from storebought lettuce!!!

This is what southwest says before its second consecutive planecrash that hour

moves goalposts

Just keep experimenting with supermarket food!

Or I'll just cook my own shit because that has worked for me all my life

NOOOOOO HASTY GENERALIZATION

Reddit

Do you grow your own ingredients? Genuinely cool if you do

when tossing a coin, its equally likely to have four heads and a tail and five heads in a row

valid

this dudes a legit moron

Probability is a funny thing.
If you ask what's the chance if the next coin flip being heads after rolling 50 heads, the answer is still 50%
If you ask what's the chance of 50 heads in a row, it's now 1/1.126 quadrillions.

Pointing to the hasty generalization fallacy as a fallacy is itself the "Im entitled to your business" fallacy.

Its a fallacy because each coin toss is an independant event so how mathmatically likely something is has no barring on what actually happens.

Depending on how you ask the question 100% charges how you measure the outcome. See what the other anon said, it's true to some extent. "At least", "Over the course of", "in a row" all will give different answers, it just depends on what you're actually looking for. Gambler's fallacy just means you are making the assumption luck has some sort of karma attribute to it

But its also the same odds as every other permutation and its true unlikelihood is entirely based on the value and meaning you put behind it and thats regardless of air resistance, finger strength, and surface you flip the coin onto

each coin toss is an independent event

the correct wording to express that is

If i flipped a coin four times, the odds are the next will be x

by phrasing it as a set of five flips, it stops being gambler's fallacy and starts being a probability question.

So does this game actually bother to explain what syllogisms are or how they relate to Formal and Informal fallacies?
If it doesn't, I don't see how useful it is just knowing the definition of a bunch of informal fallacies without understanding the formal fallacy they're a form of or how they don't form true syllogisms.

Lol no it doesn't explain shit other than quick definitions for the fallacies

appeal to probabilities and statistics fallacy

Gamblers fallacy

No, because it's not being phrased as a question its being phrased as a statement you're seeing it as a problem to solve instead of as an argument in a vacuum

that's a fallacy

even as a statement, four heads and a tail is five times more likely than five heads. its not worded as a sequence, but as a set.

phrasing is also the reason people have so much difficulty understanding the monty hall problem.

Your experience isn't valid, chud

Four heads and a tails in that sequence is literally as likely as 5 heads

It's valid but not to make a massive sweeping generalization on online shopping as a whole.

see its not phrased as a sequence, its phrased as set vs set.

in a row

Thats a sequence

fallacy fallacy

No way that's real

are you ESL by chance? there is only one way to have a set of five coin flips come up as a set, and its "in a row."

pirated to see what it was about

if you think climate change is important, that's fine. We each have our way of thinking

select "valid"

Wrong! Climate change is heckin important!!!

Lmao uninstalled

your reasoning to reach a correct statement has a fallacy, therefore your statement is incorrect

Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
If you think committing a fallacy automatically makes me wrong then you're committing a fallacy fallacy!
But that doesn't mean you're wrong either, or else I'd be committing a fallacy fallacy fallacy.
I am very smart.

OOOOX
OOOXO
OOXOO
OXOOO
XOOOO

vs

OOOOO

If you think committing a fallacy automatically makes me wrong then you're committing a fallacy fallacy!

But that doesn't mean you're wrong either, or else I'd be committing a fallacy fallacy fallacy.

cool fridge magnet

Calling out fallacies has won me every Internet argument.

cool fridge magnet

yeah if you're trans

its more fun to win internet arguments by never calling out fallacies, but encouraging them, and watching fallacious reasoning eat itself.

bot?

It's the most powerful one. Too many niggas think screaming "fallacy!" wins the argument even when you probably didn't even commit one, just called them faggots while giving a proper retort.

ad hom

ohnononono

The fallacy fallacy is an expert epistemological statement that ultimately points out that no person is fully equipped to contend with an argument even while they have the upper hand. You can see this wonderfully demonstrated by "Trust the science" types, what is the science? A paper? By who? Have you read it? Do they have motivations that would benefit them from skewing a result? Who is the authority of truth?

just called them faggots while giving a proper retort

This is a fallacy. Why should I give a proper retort to faggots?

Fallacy fallacy, I explained why you are logically wrong AND a poopyhead

You're asking too many questions that I don't feel like answering. Must be a fallacy

le comma splice

the absolute worst one in the game is

There is also such a thing as the "Fallacy fallacy": someone using a fallacy in their argument doesn't necessarily make the conclusion incorrect.

shut up dork you look like a pencil with legs, nobody listen to anything this guy says

Doesn't the game literally have appeal to novelty?

Let me teach you the ultimate uno reverse:
The fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument commits a fallacy does not render it untrue or false and to dismiss it purely on the grounds of a fallacy is a fallacy in itself.

it does. but it only considers it fallacious if its worded like "x is new we should do it"

For $29.99 you can get the new Drano DLC!

It's a crossover with dishsoap, doesn't even taste like Drano

Lol. What the fuck is the author doing

Let me teach you about Ctrl+F.

i want to buy this, but $10 is too much, would you consider lowering the price?

valid

i don't want to buy this for $10, how about $5?

invalid, middle ground fallacy

would you consider lowering the price

INVALID, statistically more often than not people buy at MSRP, chud

The latter was something like

you sell it for 10 and I want it for 8, so the right price should be 9

Also get the fuck out of my store.

fallacy fallacy

appeal to fallacies

people arent allowed to haggle fallacy

Robbing the storeclerk of agency fallacy

right now I recall, it was

i didn't want to buy it at all at $10 ($0) so give it to me for $5

It breaks my merchant combo

that's skipping the actual haggling and trying to go straight to the middle between a hypothetical and the posted price.

In light of this fallacy it's fair to say that the entire game is fallacious.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

what if I just steal the item and leave whatever money I would've haggled to?

Kill the shoplifter fallacy

Ya that's in the game, called "fallacy fallacy"

nigger whether it gets damaged depends almost entirely on how it was packaged
couriers will throw shit anyway

All Anon Babble posters are retards.
You are posting on Anon Babble.
Therefore you are a retard.

But this statement was made by a Anon Babbleposting retard, how can we trust his word?

Now extend this out to 5 coin flips and you get the idea

mspaint fallacy

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

because it to him in a dream

why do the tails coins have to be black?

lmao this should be a thing.
Granted it's just a drawn strawman in 99% of the cases but still.

its valid because he spent 300 hours to make it

Its never been proven a cointoss is true 50/50. BigCoin wants you to think youre lucky by finding a headsup coins by weighing down the tails side, hence "Tails never fails" the true odds are probably closer to 33% heads 66% tails

it's actually blue but I had to make it monochrome, ink costs and all that

Anyway why are we turning this into a probability thread
Yes it's a meme subject and yes shit depends on how you word it, even more so than most fallacies ironically enough.

so there's a 1% chance of increasing the value of the coin every time you flip it?

because of a poorly worded question. read: .

If a portal slams down on a cube, will A or B happen.

C: you stop being a faggot

i'm pretty sure in game it's worded as

four heads THEN a tail

not

four heads and a tail

kek

It wasn't.

randomlyrandom.com/flip-5-coins

Today we learn probability is the real fallacy.

chaos fallacy

nice try

Fable fallacy

its valid because he spent 300 hours to make it

Surely there is a fallacy for this? Appeal to effort or something.

he put a lot of effort into it therefore it's valid

Or the inverse

he didn't put a lot of effort into it therefore it's not valid

4 heads and a tail

five heads in a row

None of these are possible just from tossing a coin.

34 mentions of heads

12 mentions of tails

this was over before it began

its not in the game, hence why I posted it

You worded your post horribly, it's unclear if you're complaining that it's valid or that it isn't.

I used to post my argument in a thread, all 1000 characters, and then close the tab. However lately I've been keeping the tab open, and I'm noticing one or two people replying and agreeing with me. Maybe I'm actually more right about everything than I previously thought.

He means it should be considered appeal to novelty
It isn't by technicality: nobody is claiming the new thing will be better, they are just tired of the old things.

thing is old thus should be changed

is just the inverse of appeal to novelty

No all it means is that you're a pussy who seeks social validation on a chinese checkerflag site.

Faggot.
Closing the tab now.

Appeal to novelty is claiming something is better/correct just because it's new.
No such claim was actually made, it's a technicality and I would argue change for the sake of change is really just the same fallacy, but yeah.

We've been breathing for a very long time. It's time we stop.

way ahead of

There are people who actually breathe browsing this site

Cute and valid!

breathing

...you support climate change?

the new thing won't be better, which is why it's time for change.

A good way to sum up the past decade or so.

No. I paraphrased the initial argument wrong because I dont remember exactly, but basically it was

"You think climate change is important, but I dont. And that's fine"

WRONG!!!

Yes, that’s relativist fallacy. It remains a fallacy even when

I don’t think climate change is important but you do so we’re both entitled to our opinions

Something either is important or it isn’t. It can’t be both. So trying to “agree to disagree” between two fundamentally contradictory conclusions is fallacious.

Isn’t a question in the game though.

Fallacy invocation is just sign #231 that Anon Babble was the first and only board they ever lurked.

That’s funny because trannies also insist being a tranny is thousands of years old and also new in the same breath.

It literally is a question in the game, you either havent played it or havent found it.
Also relativist fallacy only applies to facts. Global warming isn't one, it's a hoax

even if you stop

nice try shlomo

Presenting arguments as to why it is a hoax isn’t a fallacy. Relativist fallacy is trying to stop the debate so you won’t have to support/prove your position.

They laugh at you for calling things they’re actively and provably pushing, slippery slopes, because of how hard they are being pushed to push it

Screenshot or it didn’t happen. Also shooped.

Just fucking play the game and you'll get it you dumb faggot

lie

But the world isnt flat therefor it cant be completely flat

Because a change in one word of a sentence means entirely diffefent things. You will die reading this sentence vs You wont die reading this sentence

Global warming isn't one, it's a hoax

Is lying a fallacy?

Fallacious arguments usually hinge on one word

But that doesn't automatically mean it's dishonest. Sometimes you don't want to get wrapped into a leftoid repeating his indoctrination

what if I like ketchup (it's called tomato sauce kill yourself) and don't consider that to be a problem.

Trying to stop the debate with “agree to disagree on two contradictory conclusions” because “I won’t be able to support mine” is inherently dishonest.

It is

Slippery slope is ONLY a fallacy if there's no logical connection between them.

If you lower the prices of our hot dogs, we'll go out of business.

is not slippery slope. There's logical reason to believe that one could lead to the other and you might be able to prove it with evidence.

If you lower the prices of our hot dogs, the crime rate will go up.

is slipper slope. There's no logical connection or reason to think they're tied together. Ironically, calling an argument a slippery slope fallacy when it's not is itself a fallacy. It's dismissing a logical chain of events as being illogical. Most of the time a slippery slope is suggested, it's not a fallacious argument.

This shit wasn't vidya-related from the OP why the fuck is it at 400 replies?

Fallacy Quiz is a videogame

Slippery slope is a fallacy when it’s implied a will automatically cause b, c, d, etc.

relevancy fallacy

Make it "I won't be able to convince you because you're a cultist so no point in trying" and we agree

It’s the dev shilling his game with mod protection

Nobody says logical fallacies can't be used. Logical Fallacies are just noted at being extremely shitty at convincing someone of your argument unless they're a retard.

Which is probably why you like them.

Convince me of what? I haven’t stated any conclusion on whatever they’re calling global warming now.

But anon, if they go out of business they will be forced into crime in order to support themselves

The royal "you", you fucking midwit

If we allow MTX in free-to-play they'll eventually add them to payed games

If we allow on-disc DLC they'll chop out parts of the game and reselling them as DLC

If we start pre-ording games then they'll have us per-ording DLC

If we accept cosmetic DLC they start adding pay-to-win DLC

Slippery slope isnt a fallacy, libs just wanna fuck kids

Pretty sure “there’s no point in supporting my position because you won’t believe me anyway” is also a fallacy.

As reminder, fallacy really just means an incomplete argument presented as correct

Yeah that's a slippery slope.
But also yes you can reach a correct conclusion with fallacious reasoning, hence why fallacy fallacy is a thing so you can always claim it's not a necessarily false prediction.

Why didnt you make that post the first time? What was the point of ?

The logical connection between those is profit incentive, thus, not a slippery slope.

Because I enjoy making people feel silly for arguing with people living in their head and insisting those people have an internet connection and I am a figment of your imagination

And I was still formulating it.

The slippery slope fallacy is just a means of throwing you off the trail by belittling your reasoning ability to determine someones motives. The saying "give an inch theyll take a mile" and "if you give a mouse a cookie" exist for a reason

these things that happened because of a logical connection between them? That’s a slippery slope!

That's sad bro

stop trying to get me to vote dems

Not as sad as believing anyone who questions or corrects you is actually your boogeyman.

What website do you think you're on right now?

fallacy really just means an incomplete argument presented as correct

no

if someone pushes one side of the left-right political ragebait shitstorm, that doesnt mean they're part of that side!

True they could be paid I guess

seems backward but I havent played the fallacy quiz so it's hard to say if you're being fallacious or just dumb

Nah, still slippery slope even if it's coherent with a supposed motive to increase profit.
The issue with fallacies is that they CAN sound fair game and even lead to a correct conclusion by chance, but they can be used to justify obviously wrong shit as well. In the case of slippery slope you can come up with all sorts of retarded scenarios as long they loosely support the initial motive, like claiming vidya devs are just going to build killer robots and they will come into your houses, forcing you to buy their games at gunpoint because eventually that's a logical course of action following their motives.

No, they’re genuinely laughing at you. As any time someone tries to insist something is a “slippery slope,” (read: if x then y, z, etc) they’re usually talking directly to activists who are actively pushing for x to get to y, z, etc. ya know like the faggot who wanted to run for president on a “let’s open LGBTQ kids clubs!”

The floor could be an asian. Cover it in ketchup and you'll definitely have a slippery slope.

No one pushed anything bro.

It's called being BTFO, sweaty

claiming vidya devs are just going to build killer robots and they will come into your houses, forcing you to buy their games at gunpoint

I want this

Lie

Who, in this thread, pushed anything?

in the game bro, come on try to keep up

Only if they are asian though. You know they will make them look like fuckable anime girls despite their intended (primary) function.

i misunderstood something? No! The leftists are pushing global warming!

now who's doing the whole boogeyman thing.......

Still you bro

sure bud, sure

Anon, you got upset because the game told you it was fallacious reasoning to try to “agree to disagree” on two contradictory conclusions.

This seems like a hasty generalization.

still not buying it, sorry

No, it’s pretty safe to generalize politicians as activists

Buying what? What are you even talking about now?

This is quite retarded.
These are two independent statements of fact:
1. I got two damaged packages.
2. I am not ordering from the internet anymore.
Both are correct statements and nowhere is it implied that the second directly follows from the first, so there's no "fallacy" anywhere.

close but not quite
it shouldn't be completely unrelated to be a slippery slope, it has to be somewhere in similar category, this isnt really a slippery slope it would just be dumb for someone to say that
a better example would be

if we are ok with 30 year old men dating 18 year old women we will soon be ok with them dating 17 year old women, then 16, then 15...

like there are some connections and I could imagine someone coming to that conclusion but at the end of the day there is no real proof that one causes the other hence its a slippery slope fallacy

Slip on a crack and break your momma's back

...the game of this thread? You ok?

Oh so you’ve from

anyone who corrects me is a leftist

to

im being gang stalked by the developers on Anon Babble!

strawman

killbot shows up at your door because you havent bought cod modern warfare 500

let it in, show it to your computer, and assure it that there's no problem, it just needs to check your games

watch it skim through your lovingly curated collection while you get to appreciate your own good taste (while hefting a brick/sledgehammer/other heavy object for when it finishes)

ambush it and start bashing it apart once it realizes there's no slop on your pc

revel in the joy of righteous violence fueled by your patrician taste as you enjoy the struggle of a classic man vs machine story brought to your door on some corporation's dime

it does sound kinda nice

You can slippery slurp deez nuts bitch

fuck you carlos

It’s funny how is correct

It was actually appeal to ridicule. But you’ve been making a fool of yourself for a while

midwit fallacy

Trying to insult people for being superior to you doesn’t work.

If someone wants to drag me to their level (retardation) I just stop giving them the time of day and respond with Anon Babble Meltzer shitposts

game release date: december 19 2024

date eceleb streamed game: april 7 2025

Oh now it makes sense why there's a thread about this game and there hasn't been one before.

Yes and?

yeah I figured that too lol
still, mildly interested in it so I might pick it up when it's on sale
15 bucks is way too steep though

Claiming something should change because it's old isn't appeal to novelty.
Appeal to novelty would be justifying said change purely with "because it's new".

Dismissing an argument because it's a fallacy is a fallacy.

I like how people think AAA dying will save video games but ecelebs are the true cancer

I kneel

Truth

What would you call “change cuz old,” as something being old isn’t a reason to change it

I would say it's pretty much the same fallacy and the only difference here is that it wasn't stated outright.

It’s begging the question, which isn’t one of the fallacies in the game

Arguing with people on Anon Babble is a waste of time. It's not like any of you dumb niggers ever changed anyone's mind.

Got his ass

its at 400 replies because its not vidya related, not in spite of it

No, I'm going to listen to her because smoking crack clearly ruined her life and I don't want to end up sucking dick for 20 bucks in an alley.

Sounds like more salt from someone who’s never won an argument

And you sound like a dumbass who's never realized he's lost one.

I accept your concession

Way to prove my point.

implying you had one

this

I'm not exactly surprised, but turns out most people don't really understand the point of learning about fallacies.
It's one of those things where you initially think "oh, if more people knew about they would make better arguments and try to be more unbiased in their reasoning", it just doesn't work this way. At best they get used as ammo to dismiss actually valid reasoning due to similarity in their form with a fallacy(like calling anything that just happens to contain insults an ad hom), and at worst they become better at hiding their own biases by trying to formulate arguments without making them sound fallacious.

The biggest redpill about any debate is that really the only thing that matters is the good will and intellectual honesty of both participants.

I'm not exactly surprised, but turns out most people don't really understand the point of learning about fallacies.

maybe i'm retarded or delusional but i dont think i've ever had to explicitly learn about fallacies i can just see that they don't hold water logically

appeal to triviality

appeal to triviality is about arguments, there's not argument in his post he just throws out a thesis with nothing to back it up

Nah it's fair, a good amount of them are blatant enough. Like yeah no shit just calling somebody a faggot or lying isn't a logical argument.
I would say most of the time it's the context making them sneaky, if you aren't actively thinking about the the possibility of fallacious reasoning.

The reason the Greeks/Romans categorized them all is because honesty is a core tenet of a functional civilization. They also knew it was a lot easier to generate bullshit than it is to refute it, so they identified all the cores of bad arguments so as to prevent bullshit from running wild.

i will say i like having names for calling people out because it's hard to explain to a retard why he's retarded so maybe i'll grind this game a little to learn the names

I "played" the OP game and there was an instance where "fallacy fallacy" was the correct answer, so I'm going to go with that. When I say played, I mean I watched a friend stream and then immediately refund it because it's 15 fucking dollars.

Fuck this question in particular, we all got it wrong.

Playing exactly one round of this game made me much less likely to reply to retarded posts on Anon Babble. I already knew Anon Babbleirgins are retarded, of course, but I didn't realize just how bad it is.

Meatbag fantasy fallacy

A robot would beat you up, human.

lie

killbot shows up at your door because you havent bought cod modern warfare 500

let it in, show it to your computer, and assure it that there's no problem, it just needs to check your games

instantly punches a hole in your stomach because you forgot to say McDonalds

it's not a fallacy because crack is addictive

Interesting so if you said

If you do crack once you'll od it hundred more times

That's slippery slope but

Crack is addictive so if you can get addicted and do more crack

That's not a fallacy. Even though the conclusion is the same. Because fallacies are about reasoning not the conclusion