Its really easy to fall intonone of these. Language is a tricky thing. Its hard to express oneself in a way, that they avoid all of these. Two sentences may sound the same, but one might be a logical fallacy. Thats why its so important to pay proper attention to what others say and what you yourself say.
It is extremely difficult to make any statement that is not a fallacy of some sort. This sort of thing is mainly used to pick apart the logic of an argument and help you consider options.
I particularly like the placement of the "fallacy fallacy." Someone using a logical fallacy isn't necessarily wrong, but they would be subject to more scrutiny because of their error.
It's like a reverse uno card. You can get away with any fallacy in your logic because as soon as someone points it out you just say "fallacy fallacy" 😂 Example: A: The earth is flat. B: You are wrong, there's lots of evidence for the contrary! A: Yeah? Well, uh, you're a moron so what do you know? B: Ad hominem! A: Fallacy fallacy!
@@levi799Fallacy Fallacy would be saying someone is wrong because their argument is bad: A: The Earth is round. B: No, it's flat A: You're wrong; My science teacher told me it's round. B: That's an appeal to authority. You're argument is bad, that means you're wrong, the earth is flat. Pointing out that someone made Fallacy is not a Fallacy. Using the fact that someone made a bad argument as evidence against their position is.
Cap. You failed a math exam. We all see this type of content, so it's not refreshing. Tho, it's still a great video. You dont even make content. If you see this content = you know how to argue = someone knows that = no one trusts you anymore = youre sad I love educational videos but this one is not even based on science Have you thought back on your comment? Theres only 2 choices: you found this content poorly-made or find me very poor. So youre saying that school is not needed? Why? Because i said so Elon musk once said this content sucks UA-cam is not even natural, go watch birds I don't believe 1 part in your comment (you said its educational), so I dont believe you The whole of this comment is untrue, so nothing is true Ok i give up
@@user-tx4gc6gt1v What do you think? it's obvious. I know because I'm a scientist. This isn't even a natural conclusion, you need to calm down you're getting too heated. Next you're going to say my comment is satire too? Elon Musk was very clear in his statement about this video "video sucks"-Elon Musk and he said that last month
OMG....Did you just jump DIRECTLY to the subject matter? No self-promotion, no ads, no garbage intro music nor begging for subs!!?? Subbed automatically.....good job
I find the Texas sharpshooter is a real issue in academia. PhD students and scientific staff heavily rely on publication and that again is dependent on conclusions that are satisfying.
Yes, to some extent it is why different areas of study will come up with opposing conclusions due to only being exposed to one type of information. At that point it is the job of science communicators with a more general and broad understanding to see the full picture. Bare in mind that although it is a problem in academia, it is less prevalent in the sciences- as the main purpose of the scientific method is to reduce the effects of Confirmation bias. (essentially what causes the texas sharpshooter fallacy).
@@Lscott-fk2sn But as soon as something is politicised its hard to come to conclusions that are unpopular. As a geoscientists I asked my supervisor once if I could investigate the benefits of climate change and was not allowed to.
@@teekanne15 unfortunately that is not an issue specific to academia and is a broader issue caused by governing systems. At the very least, in the case of climate change, there is not much of a shortage of varying studies due to incentives from large fossil corporations. And opposing incentives from international treaties.
@@Lscott-fk2sn agree 100% its a general human issue with the formation of a guiding opinion that is hard uncomfortable to challange. The thing is that because of fossile fuel companies its hard to do those studies without looking biased.
Because it's often how they're taught to write their papers. Come up with a hypothesis, then go find facts to back it up, or do research to prove the theory. (Yes I may have switched hypothesis and theory)
Most people don't focus on constructing an academic debate. The goal is not to write an effective paper, their goal is to be understood as a person. Since most people's thoughts are conducted by their emotions and emotions, therefore, are automatically valid, they are under the false impression that if they can make you understand their emotions, then you too will understand that what they believe is obviously the correct belief.
That's a fallacy. Most people don't have the time or understanding to know and avoid fallacys. Some fallacys in my opinion is not a real fallacy. Take slippery slope.
It's so true... I mean, even that comment is riddled with fallacy and they do seem particularly proud! Oh no! Did I just use a fallacy? Crap... How do I get out of this?! Oh well, it is what it is!
Man, this should be stickied in every discussion forum. People LOVE using strawman and ad hominem and when you point it out instead whine about being outed.
It’s a common mark of narcisists or sociopaths, they will try to make you feel bad and guilty, victimising themselves for making them more conscious of their lapses in reason
@@cyb3rb3rri87 It only seems like a pandemic because "narcissist" is so overused now by people trying to sound scientific/intelligent when someone just did something a bit selfish. People who throw around this term have likely never encountered a real one. Real narcissists are virtually in their own world and it's quite jarring to see in action.
The Chainmail Fallacy: The assumption that because one’s argument for a position is invalid, their entire position is invalid. An example is “That one picture of the Loch Ness Monster was fake, so the Loch Ness Monster must also be fake.” The name comes from treating arguments like links in chainmail. If you remove a single link, you still have a study chainmail at the end. It’s related to the Fallacy Fallacy.
The Loch Ness Monster is, as we know, fake for other reasons (no other photos have been taken that haven’t also been shown to be fabricated, explorations of the loch showed no signs of Nessie, etc.)
You should do a “every objection in court explained” (Relevance, compound question, asked and answered, etc.) I think it would work well with your format.
@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii Ad-eminem fallacy: When you accuse your opponent that his palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy; there's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti 😂
Ad Hominem is just absolutely hilarious to me because I think it works just not in the way it’s supposed to. Imagine someone’s trying to tell me that bananas are yellow and the other dude just goes “HE HAS A BALDING HAIRLINE DUDE DONT LISTEN TO HIM” then I can’t take anyone seriously anymore. Also it’s peak immaturity and I love it.
@@Jack.Strait I'm no Dream supporter, but I see this all the time recently from Dream haters who don't even have proper criticisms to throw out there. "I don't like him, therefore he is objectively ugly!" "I don't like him, therefore he is a breadophile!" etc. It's like, y'all are allowed to not like him (god knows I don't), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to be a dick. Then these same people will turn around and preach "body positivity" like they didn't just mock the most average-looking man who looks like most white men 💀 Twitter is nothing but a hypocritical cesspool of mouth breathers and cocomelon addicts
Your observation hits the nail on the head! It's a fascinating split between the consequences of a lack of critical thinking and the impact of genuinely mean-spirited individuals. Addressing logical fallacies, like the 'fallacy fallacy,' adds another layer to the discussion-acknowledging that while a fallacy doesn't inherently disprove an argument, it invites scrutiny. This comment is a gem for fostering more thoughtful and respectful discourse.
This should be a staple in every discussion - a brilliant breakdown of common fallacies! It's disheartening to see how often strawman and ad hominem get thrown around. Your point about the lack of critical thinking and genuine meanness driving these behaviors is spot on. The "fallacy fallacy" placement is particularly insightful - acknowledging that using a logical fallacy doesn't automatically make someone wrong, but it invites closer scrutiny. Great insight into the dynamics of online discussions!
When there are other videos on YT that run for seven minutes or more just to tell you one thing, this video is a revelation of how it CAN be done ... no tedious "let's get right into it" intros, no pointless padding or tedious attempts at humour. Super-high signal to noise ratio! I subscribed and liked WITHOUT being told to!
it does come at a cost, though. A ton of people in comments (like the person above me) seem to either barely or not at all understand some of the fallacies, which could've been avoided with a longer video. Still a good one, but there are a few misses
The Strawman fallacy is a weird one in debate spaces because it's simultaneously one of the most commonly correctly recognised and one of the most common to accuse someone of incorrectly...
@@brianwagner781 Yeah that happens... a lot... Sometimes people seem to use it to just mean "weak argument." They just love throwing around the word "strawman" so much that they seem to redefine it so that they can say it more.
@@alansmithee419 when I took a critical thinking class in college and first learned about some of these, the idea was to personally become a more disciplined thinker. I get the impression debate students often skip that part and are just looking for a stick to wield against others.
That one is the most common but it's because of another fallacy underneath it. Which is the false assumption that one is correctly interpreting reality. Example: A religious person vs a woke person trying to determine what is true. But neither can accurately understand the other because they interpret reality differently. One is created by God, the other is not. Therefore, their conclusions and the logic that leads them to it are not the same. So it's not that they are necessarily misrepresenting your position to buy rather, you are not even talking about the same thing. You're using the same words but having a different meaning within the context of their worldview.
Absolutely! These insights are a much-needed guide for online discussions. It brilliantly dissects the pitfalls between a lack of critical thinking and genuine hostility. Refreshing content on UA-cam with no frills, just straight to the point and educational.
And not just online but irl too, can't tell you the number of occasions I'll explain, in detail, what the broader logical fallacy they are proposing is, but to have just two words to precisely surmise it, pinpoint it - brilliant! Makes you feel like your time and effort put into making conversations better really pays off, being more witty, more knowledgeable and empowered - and you can share your knowledge with others too. I just wish people were more thoughtful!
You will get better at discerning if the argument is a fallacy or contains a fallacy when dealing with flat earthers and young earth creationists, but sometimes they are both at the same time
@@kaliban4758Personally, I don't bother with them. To even entertain their premise is to give some modicum of credit to it, which I flatly refuse to do, as it's just a strategy for them to feel special, unique or go against the masses, they know it's bullshit, no need to prove anything imho. It's more pertinent with Kremlinbots and pro-Russia/China commenters to let others see how people can defend our democracies, even with words, and counter the whataboutisms & ridicule the snarky comments (almost always accompanied with a smiley emoji). Honestly recon UA-cam should have a system like Reddit, where you get downvoted for being a bot and your comment goes to the bottom of the page automatically.
@kaliban4758 Had some interesting debates with flat earthers. They were incorrect in the end, but their intelligent arguments forced me to doubt myself and conduct experiments that taught me a little more about science. Though, in the end, they never admitted they lost the argument. Sadly, it seems there are a handful of very intelligent people who understand math and scientific studies, but still refuse to believe anything that they cannot witness directly.
One thing I think is important for people who don't study philosophy to know, is that most people use fallacies unknowingly. That doesn't make them valid, it just doesn't mean they are bad or dumb for using a fallacy.
One of my favorites is the motte-and-bailey fallacy, in which someone starts with a controversial opinion, but pretends to have a much more modest and defensible position when challenged.
It's because the person using them is any of htese things or a combination of them. Tall so appears more commanding, authoritative, in power etc. People submit to a tall person more likely or afraid he would knock them out. Attractive. You want to always side with who is more attractive so they are free to make up a lot of fallacies and people believe them. Nepotism: Always appeals to big organizations or anyone reprseenting them like the US Marines, Government, etc.
I can highly recommend cranky uncle to you. It's an education app that focuses on teaching how to spot logical fallacies in conversations. It had such a marked impact on how I view discussions in my day-to-day life. I haven't used it in a while but when I was using it a lot I was such a pain in every political discussion in my friend group it was a true joy!
There's also the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy, where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial and harder to defend. If someone challenges the claim, the arguer can say the challenger is arguing for the controversial stance and can refute any arguments for the easier stance.
This is why I quit my middle school's debate team. The teacher in charge of it literally hand-picked me after one of my argumentative essays caught her eye. I showed up to the meeting and the teacher had me do a debate with one of the members. I had an actual argument, evidence, and I was cordial the entire time. My opponent basically went through this entire list of fallacies, which I then shot down, before giving up and behaving like a bratty child. He started telling everyone that if they didn't support his side of the debate, then he wouldn't be friends with any of them anymore. He was apparently the best on the debate team, and I humilated him within 5 minutes of being there. Luckily, he got to keep his title because I grabbed my stuff and I walked straight out. The teacher stopped me and asked me what was wrong and I told her that I'd come back to the debate team once they actually knew how to properly debate and have an informative conversation rather than childishly insulting their opponent and using fallacies to make up for the fact that they had no evidence to support their side. And then like a year later i ended up in a mental hospital because extreme depression. Go figure.
I really relate to your story! I was looking forward to "being an adult" so hard when I was in school, because I thought "actual adults" would of course understand these fallacies. Even without being in a debate team or smth (we didnt have such a thing). Discussing anything with people was always sooo exhausting. And then came the university and the first job and I was still surrounded by angry children :( This is why I hate politics and just cannot spend any time on that, cause it is just ridiculous how these people talk to each other.
Debates are awesome and all students should learn to debate. Now, I am not in anyway in support of that idiot who won debates or the poorly-educated person who decided that the best debater should be the most idiotic sounding person of the bunch (note: being able to spill out debate winning points like a machine gun has less value than attending an oration class by Donald J Trump). True debates should be one where there are at least 6 sides, and participants should be assigned randomly to sides that they feel have a disadvantage in the chance to win the debate. One winner should be based on oration skills. Another different winner should be based on written course work, where the quality of logic displayed and the amount of research done is judged. However, the main purpose for all the students to participate is to instill a habit of thinking in terms of all sides equally and objectively before engaging in an argument, which is a waste of time… just like the current state of debate which is a waste of time. For topics with the dominant 2 sides, I rather preferred an accused approach. The accused approach is a debate of one person by himself. A way to view this sort of debate (because we want to teach kids how to think, not to hate thinking): a person is accused of one thing and so he must convince his peers that he is not that something. However, he can only win after a thorough thought process where he must also think equally in terms of his accuser without disparaging his accuser. Usually, ended with the statement "When one is wrong, does it mean the other party is right? No, it only means that HE is only ignorant. I am accused of being in the wrong and I have proved that I am not of ignorance. For whether it is thru bashful youth, prideful nobility, or genuine love for his father, that led my accuser to do what he had done, I asked that he be forgiven today."
Dont worry, Game companies use this to create exit barrier. You cant let go of a game since there is too many time and money you spend for it already. You cant stop and must do the daily grind to keep up, OR ALL THOSE STUFF YOU DID WILL BE IRRELEVANT. Blizzard is well known to this. On another example. Thats why companies never count the money that have been spent before this point to reach a decision in their finance. If a project might have to be stopped to cut loss, they can not looking at how all this time that project spent the capitals.
I’ve had this with a couple of shows. For me, Steven Universe was a big one. I didn’t like the direction but I kept watching because I had spent years waiting on episodes.
yea it's not that people use these fallacies after looking them up, we just naturally use them and debaters put a label on them after observing and defining the fallacy.
Religion, politics, commercials, apologists, conspiracies,..... the list is quite long. They lie, either to you, themselves or both. Or are just dumb ;-)
@@WanderTheNomadYeah! like 'the bible is true because its the word of gawd.' how do you know? 'it says so in the bible' how many BILLIONS don't see the issue here!?
@@CyberBeep_kenshiI have never, EVER, in my life, have seen someone say such sentence. I think they meant stuff logically, such as “Why would the disciples fake Jesus’ resurrection? It would benefit them more to not say anything than to claim that he is risen, even if he did rise up.” The book “I don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” has some logical explanations and non biblical evidence to prove the truth of the Bible. It’s a good read.
The nirvana fallacy is very dangerous one giving the fact that it sometimes prevent society from taking important decisions because "yeah, people will find a way around it anyway"
There's also the bandwagon fallacy, which is a logical fallacy by supporting of argument using popularity, aka peer pressure. Like "most teens smoke. I'm a teen, therefore i should smoke."
4:37 Small correction: The sunk cost fallacy actually goes in both directions. The much more common direction is the one described here, where one defends continuing to invest resources in an endeavor based on the fact that resources have already invested. The other direction is arguing against the investment of further resources based on previous costs, rather than the potential cost vs. returns ratio of the next investment.
Just to make sure I understand the full scope, would this fallacy also be used to describe someone who just started investing resources and then said since its early on it's justified giving up?
Put it in your video, then. He can't just read all of Wikipedia and fit it into the video. He was very brief about every single one of these, so it's kinda weird that you felt like this one in particular needed to go longer.
I really like the last one fallacy fallacy because it really wraps everything up, meaning even if one of these fallacies happen, doesn’t mean it’s wrong
@@Purpless_ON You still haven' t met your burden of proof. When it's overcast, the sky is gray. At sunrise and sunset the sky is purple, yellow, orange, pink, and/or red. At night, the sky is black. Outside of all of that, the "sky" doesn't actually have a color since it's a matter of how light interacts with air molecules. I don't know how this has anything to do with the fallacy fallacy and you meeting your burden of proof.
Rahh, this is very informative thank you! But also hard to watch, because I keep thinking about all the times others, or I, have done these. Let's learn!
Since you aim to educate about these many various items, here's a suggestion - leave the text on the screen a bit longer after you finish speaking. There is a cognitive conflict between trying to get what you say and at the same time seeing it explained visually and trying to get the meaning there. Even if the visuals are describing the same thing as your voice, they present a different look at the same thing and the brain (at least mine) doesn't grasp both at the same time, in such a short time window, especially for never heard-off items. Still great list and explanations (if I pause the video), thank you.
This, I try to understand what is shown once it appears while also listening to what is being said, and most of the time it's really hard to connect the both and it turns out in a scrumbled mess which makes me re-watch it while only listening, and then only trying to understand the situation in the drawing
Same! It would have been nice to explain the fallacy first then show the example. The video was great though! Love to see a more in depth version of this, you can make it by parts so that it wouldn't be too long.
IMHO that's not so much a fallacy but the end to an argument. When someone insists on his point because he believes in it, it's just better to give up.
Rationalism isn't inherently good. When you realize just how few things in the world, universe, and about existence we can possibly know for certain, you quickly realize that deeply held rationalism is just as absurd as those who refuse rationale for feeling and whims. There is a balance between it all that a minute few are even able to hold.
@@bbbbbbb51I mean that’s great and all, “perfection doesn’t exist in nature” but when someone just straight up doesn’t wanna listen to a real discussion because it’s “their opinion” then it’s a problem
I was looking for the name of a fallacy I remember talking about in college. It has to do with swapping meaning using words that have multiple definitions. Example. the word 1.) Manipulation can mean to handle or control something (or someone) skillfully 2.) to control or influence a person or situation unfairly or unscrupulously I've seen this used to attack people who present a skillful, logical argument to someone because they are 'handling them skillfully' (1) therefore they are manipulating said individual(2)
I'm glad you brought up Bulverism because it gave me a flashback to an example of it. My grandparents are really diehard Catholics, and one time I was arguing with them about whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I cited that the American Psychological Association said that it isn't a choice. My grandmother literally, in response, said "Oh, then the head of the APA must be gay." (implying that it's an ideologically charged moved based on identity rather than one rooted in truth). A lot of parts of this video remind me of my grandparents actually. They're extremely terrible at rhetoric.
The Texas Sharpshooter is something that happens to me a lot without me knowing. I would search up specific questions not knowing that I did not consider other factors.
As someone who grew up with three elder brothers in an argumentative family, we had to suffer through alot of these logical fallacies in arguments. It feels powerful being able to tell someone that you see right through their argumentation error since you know exactly its called and because it is completely nonsensical and unfair. Only the truth and helpfulness shall prevail.
It's extremely tiring living with a confrontational person who always falls back to fallacies and gets offended if you don't value talking to them anymore. I get you man.
The most important thing to note about the slippery slope is that it isn’t a fallacy unless the conclusion doesn’t draw logically from the available information. Taking something to its logical conclusion is considered a logical argument and the slippery slope has been documented as real many times.
This is also true for a few other fallacies, if done logically they are perfect valid. For example, ad-hominem in a lot of circumstances is completely unrelated, but if you bring up someone's past actions related to the topic it isn't ad-hominem as there is a logical reason behind doing so (i.e. if someone is known to lie about the results of sports matches, it is a valid thing to bring up when debating that person about the results of sports matches, however that doesn't immediately nullify their argument as that's a fallacy in itself).
@@queen-lilyorjiako268 Except it may not he a fallacy at all that is being used. Slippery Slope Fallacy is a commonish fallacy to accuse someone of on the Internet because the arguer doesn't like where the "slippery slope" is going.
The issue with slippery slope often isn’t that slippery slopes don’t exist, it’s that you can use slippery slope to fallaciously argue against almost anything even when like the next step you’re worried about is a whole new situation that would require a different analysis. It’s important to acknowledge that slippery slopes can exist because that helps prevent them, but paradoxically the argument also gets in the way of perfectly valid and rational actions because “well if we do this it opens the door to this other thing”
@@longislandlegoboy it's only applicable to drawing a conclusion when it doesn't make sense the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason, but for example saying burn coal->climate gets warmer->ice disappears->cute arctic animals go extinct is technically a slippery slope according to some people
Lets be honest. We're all mainly here to learn how we can argue with others on comment sections of social media so we can "win" But reality is, we're shouldn't be learning how to argue, we should be learning how to communicate better.
I genuinely have encountered almost every one of these at some point, so thanks for this video. I have a gut feeling this video is going to be referenced hundreds of times.
Me too. The amount of times people have purposefully gone out of their way to upset me, only for me to get upset and call them out on what they did, only for them to say "wow relax you shouldn't talk to me like that, it hurts my feelings". Like bitch if you don't....
@@nomoretwitterhandles But I have to say, this fallacy made me really hope for the "Fallacy fallacy" to also be present, which it was! Yay! Because I have to say, that often anger makes discussions spiral out of control and unproductive. I worked hard on myself as it happened, that my discussion partner was getting angry, which made me angry, just to be then tone policed and called out by the other for being angry. When I started analyzing myself, why I even became angry I finally noticed that the other was the one starting. This realization enabled me to notice this and from there on call the other person out on their anger first while keeping my calm. So basically do "tone policing" but I'd argue, totally justified in this case.
Agreed. We often argue about things we care about. We cannot, therefore, always remain entirely logical. Emotion does exist. We are human after all. For example: -A is using B's frustration as evidence that B is being dishonest. "He wouldn't have been so defensive if he wasn't hiding something!" -A mistreats B, but A also uses B's frustration to frame themself as the victim. "I dehumanized you but you didn't sugar-coat your words. You are clearly the aggressor!" -Treating a hyperbole or metaphor, particularly one that's obvious or has been clarified to be a figure of speech, as though it is completely serious. This antagonizes your opponent, turning the topic away from their argument. I would prefer a world where everyone was exclusively dedicated to logic. It would be most efficient. But most people we argue with are not scientists, nor are they robots, nor are they Vulcans. We need to consider context and others' perspectives if we hope to actually have meaningful debate.
Im my highschool philosophy classes, our teacher taught us all of these fallacies and then had a debate with the whole class where he would argue for or against any prompt we gave him against the whole class. Of course we gave him hard things to argue, "smoking should be legal for kids", "Canada should join the US [I'm Canadian]," "Extreme sports should be illegal" and in every case he always destroyed the whole class. It was an incredibly important lesson we learned that, just because you can make a sound argument with little to no fallacies, doesn't make you correct. It just means you're good at debating, and that's it.
the fact they bursted on the scene with immediate bangers is crazy, when I started making videos they were literally so ass I cringed while making them
I'm so glad you did this video. I knew plenty of these before knowing their names or how to define them bc I can sniff out bullshit, but was only taught a few in school
Politics is about influencing people, and fallacies are flaws that exist in everyone's thinking, so it's the perfect tool for politics. The reason we've identified all these isn't so we won't use them in a debate, it's so we'll be able to avoid them in research. In a debate they're actually super effective if the audience can't detect them.
@@user-qd4td7yb8ethats a fallacy fallacy, youre assuming that the statement is wrong because there is a fallacy, though the statement is generally considered correct.
Some of these aren't logical fallacies though, unless he explained them wrong. For example the "definist fallacy" isn't a fallacy because the definitions assigned to words and vise versa are arbitrary. To call it a fallacy would be arguing semantics which ironically is a logical fallacy.
I think you’re right to a certain extent. I’ve seen people try to make arguments by defining things into existence. During a religious debate stream I saw a few months back, the theist argued that god was the universe itself, and since we know the universe exists, then their god must also exist. Obviously, most people who talk about belief in god aren’t imagining just regular reality, but something supernatural, so this caller was clearly trying to define god into existence. This also often gets paired with the equivocation fallacy, since the caller, once they defined god as just the universe, proceeded to make the assumption that they had proved the existence of a supernatural being. I learned a lot about logic and fallacies from these streams.
@@cobblegen1204the fallacy there would be eqiuvocation; defining a word and and then using it interchangably with something dissimilar. Defining new words during arguments is never a fallacy, and should not be stigmatized, as conceptual engineering is one of the most important tools at the philosopher's disposal.
@@f.b.i6889why would arguing semantics be a fallacy? It seems like it's a pre-requisite to steelman another point of view before you can even consider something an argument. I'd actually be interested in literature that negates semantics, you could source one.
There is another. No Limits Fallacy. A fallacy that claims that because the limit of something hasn’t been found or shown that the thing shown has no limit.
The best fallacy is clearly the fallacy fallacy which gives you some breathing room on your fallacies to not completely fallacy. Excellent. Cool stuff thanks for the video
@@Mcpwnt The Fallacy Fallacy is just a failsafe in case someone tries to argue that because that the other person is wrong because they made a logical fallacy. One can make a correct conclusion despite having made a logical fallacy, the existence of said fallacy just means that they arrived at that conclusion via incorrect or faulty premises. Fallacies are all about the logical process, not the conclusion.
@@Mcpwntit doesn't invalidate the list. You can still use the list to point out weak arguments, the list was never designed to invalidate someone's conclusion(s) just the path(s) they take to get to said conclusion(s).
ambiguity was so funny even tho i don't know the beatles keep up the good work man you propably rearrange the order of those andthey take like 6 hours to make a 10 min vid
This seems like a potentially helpful reference for improving one's own arguments, but I would caution that calling people out when they use fallacies usually backfires. Usually when I see these mentioned in the wild, it is either just a name drop or a possibly a link to the definition of the alleged fallacy. Rarely do people bother to show how the argument in question fails. Also, the absolute strongest thing that such a call out can logically prove is that a belief is poorly argued. It never disproves the underlying belief. If someone has five reasons to believe something and the one that is easiest to explain is logically shaky in the way they tried to explain it, it may be rational to be a little less confident in the belief or add qualifiers to it, but it would not be rational to abandon it entirely. By bringing up fallacies, you risk derailing the discussion towards the nature of discussion rather than the topic previously discussed. It also often comes across as a personal attack. If not worded with the utmost care, such a call out may be interpreted as an insult to the intelligence of the interlocutor. Insulting someone doesn't automatically make the rest of your argument wrong, but it frequently makes it utterly unpersuasive. Finally, formal debate is a rare form of conversation, even when people disagree. Most people just aren't looking to get into a word fight most of the time, and telling people they broke the rules to a game they weren't playing and have never studied isn't going to make you the kind of friends that listen to your views when there is disagreement.
"By bringing up fallacies, you risk derailing the discussion towards the nature of discussion rather than the topic previously discussed." Very well stated. Being able to hear someone past what they're saying is so invaluable. And then, being humble enough to move past anything that didn't help you hear it is what moves things forward.
I agree with you. Pointing out the fallacy can devolve into argument about the nature of the discussion rather than the assumption being made. I don’t agree that you can never disprove a belief by pointing out the fallacy in question. In many cases, a person can give up a position simply by pointing out the flaw in their reasoning. Not always of course, but certainly not never.
fallacy hunting itself can also be seen as a form of tone policing or possibly appeal to accomplishment. Knowing and calling out logical fallacies doesn't make your argument any more qualified than the person making fallacies. It also doesn't positively serve your credibility if all you do is call out semantics against unprepared opinions rather than actually coming up with informative, logically sound, and constructive opinions.
This video is reminiscent of older YT content. It's very direct and rigorous in speech. I was able to quickly replay the bits I didn't understand several times to recap and self teach if I didn't grasp the explanation given. For what could easily underdtand, it wasn't a waste of time either. Your style of presentation is also masterful. Your infographics communicate ideas or information simply without excess visuals to distract from the salient data. Another common mistake is also death by powerpoint which you avoid unless absolutely nessecary like the ski instructor = job example. People don't need to be told to like and subscribe if the content is good enough.
what on earth, ive just checked your channel and youve got a 100000 subscribers off 5 videos? and in like 2 weeks??? great work pal youve really got the youtube algorithm by the balls. your video format is an incredible combination of both simplicicty and complexity which makes it easy to delve into interesting topics and continue watching more, plus it helps youve got a nice voice. amazing work mate
Whenever I see any sort of content on logical fallacies, they often times (more often than not) forget the Fallacy Fallacy lol. Glad to see you didn't leave it out. It's the one that sort of tempers all the rest IMO. Just because you spot someone has one or more of these logical fallacies in their argument, does not immediately negate their conclusions. They can still, ultimately have the right conclusion.
I'm a graphic designer and this is one of the best uses of Comic Sans I've ever seen. It's a font that gets a lot of hate but, as with most things, it's about how you use it. And the graphics work really well with the font.
@@Kevin-xk3me It's one of the things he got from the video. A comment can point out any of the good aspects of a video, even if said aspect is completely unrelated to the video's topic.
@@minnigmanmad Then how do we deal with those that weaponize these, always invalidating arguments because of one fallacy, won't understand the point of the other(s) who are arguing, always hoping to spot a fallacy to get the "moral" high ground because they can construct better sentences than others. It's like trying to deal with someone in Yugioh who's deck is 90% hand traps, if you don't know what I mean basically someone who's only goal in the argument is to spot fallacies and not deal with the argument itself, it won't go anywhere if one side is always invalidating the others argument because of fallacies, granted there ARE some fallacies that needs to be address, but can they move on from the inconvenience? Honestly it always seems one sided. My minds not whole today, along with I just woke up, so if this does not make sense then the original point I made with my other comment is lost in my head. I'm glad they caught on to this exploit loop and made Fallacy Fallacy, because sometimes even if there is a fallacy, there's a point to be made and etc. Not everyone is fluent in the art of arguing, and it's best not to antagonise those who haven't studied in a high pay school just to learn about fallacies. TL;DR I have mix feelings when pointing out fallacies, especially being a jerk and just pointing them out and not pointing at the destination the argument should be going. There might be a better word and definition for these kind of people but I don't know what.
I didn't know TV Tropes was doing videos for indexes but I'm here for it. And how about the "ingredients you can pronounce" fallacy from Chipotle and every self-appointed nutrition expert... (Appeal to nature subtrope?)
i like how half of those happen cause the lack of critical thinking and the other half is caused by genuinely mean people
That statement is also based on an assumption- you're assuming intent.
Oh here we go
You just did composition fallacy, hasty generalization, and burden of proof.
Its really easy to fall intonone of these. Language is a tricky thing. Its hard to express oneself in a way, that they avoid all of these. Two sentences may sound the same, but one might be a logical fallacy. Thats why its so important to pay proper attention to what others say and what you yourself say.
@@conejitorosada2326I'm seeing a fallacy fallacy here but you're technically correct anyway…
when you try to have a debate with someone, and they pull up any of these
U gotta pull up the fallacy fallacy
Twitter moment
Literally 1984
Nothing wrong with that, as long as:
a) They’re accurately identifying the fallacy
b) They aren’t committing the fallacy fallacy
Your statement is a classic example of the fallacy fallacy
What I've taken from this video is that every argument I've ever had or heard in my entire life were all fallacies
dumb and dumber
It is extremely difficult to make any statement that is not a fallacy of some sort. This sort of thing is mainly used to pick apart the logic of an argument and help you consider options.
Thank goodness for fallicy fallicy
This comment on its own has to be a fallacy. 😂
Literally 😅😅
Twitter user tutorial
i‘m serious，it is
Composition fallacy
@@DinoJules589strawman fallacy
@@Ibnfunkbulverism, possibly even coutier's reply
Was exactly what I thought the whole time watching the video
I particularly like the placement of the "fallacy fallacy." Someone using a logical fallacy isn't necessarily wrong, but they would be subject to more scrutiny because of their error.
It's like a reverse uno card. You can get away with any fallacy in your logic because as soon as someone points it out you just say "fallacy fallacy" 😂
Example:
A: The earth is flat.
B: You are wrong, there's lots of evidence for the contrary!
A: Yeah? Well, uh, you're a moron so what do you know?
B: Ad hominem!
A: Fallacy fallacy!
@@levi799
B: Fallacy fallacy!
A: Fallacy fallacy!
@@gideonjohnson8268 Endless loop. It's about who can keep it up the longest!
@@levi799Fallacy Fallacy would be saying someone is wrong because their argument is bad:
A: The Earth is round.
B: No, it's flat
A: You're wrong; My science teacher told me it's round.
B: That's an appeal to authority. You're argument is bad, that means you're wrong, the earth is flat.
Pointing out that someone made Fallacy is not a Fallacy. Using the fact that someone made a bad argument as evidence against their position is.
How about a fallacy fallacy fallacy
Its kind of refreshing seeing this type of content on youtube, no intro, no filler, barely an outro, i love it, just straight forward and educational.
Cap. You failed a math exam.
We all see this type of content, so it's not refreshing.
Tho, it's still a great video.
You dont even make content.
If you see this content = you know how to argue = someone knows that = no one trusts you anymore = youre sad
I love educational videos but this one is not even based on science
Have you thought back on your comment?
Theres only 2 choices: you found this content poorly-made or find me very poor.
So youre saying that school is not needed?
Why? Because i said so
Elon musk once said this content sucks
UA-cam is not even natural, go watch birds
I don't believe 1 part in your comment (you said its educational), so I dont believe you
The whole of this comment is untrue, so nothing is true
Ok i give up
@@gam8052bro used every fallacy in our entire world within one comment💀
@@gam8052Bro used the fallacy stones 🤜
@@gam8052 god i hope this is satire cause you used at least half falacies in the video in the comment
@@user-tx4gc6gt1v What do you think? it's obvious. I know because I'm a scientist. This isn't even a natural conclusion, you need to calm down you're getting too heated. Next you're going to say my comment is satire too? Elon Musk was very clear in his statement about this video "video sucks"-Elon Musk and he said that last month
OMG....Did you just jump DIRECTLY to the subject matter? No self-promotion, no ads, no garbage intro music nor begging for subs!!?? Subbed automatically.....good job
I agree but promoting something for a brief period in a video isn't a ruiner to a content
@@achillesheel1176 Honestly, even just including fking timestamps is great, but also yeah, just not ruining the watch-ability for stupid nonsense.
Yeah but isn't that the purpose of the video... Over Reacting
There are addons that skip this for you.
heres your internet brownie points for reveling over this elementary thing
I find the Texas sharpshooter is a real issue in academia. PhD students and scientific staff heavily rely on publication and that again is dependent on conclusions that are satisfying.
Yes, to some extent it is why different areas of study will come up with opposing conclusions due to only being exposed to one type of information.
At that point it is the job of science communicators with a more general and broad understanding to see the full picture.
Bare in mind that although it is a problem in academia, it is less prevalent in the sciences-
as the main purpose of the scientific method is to reduce the effects of Confirmation bias.
(essentially what causes the texas sharpshooter fallacy).
@@Lscott-fk2sn But as soon as something is politicised its hard to come to conclusions that are unpopular. As a geoscientists I asked my supervisor once if I could investigate the benefits of climate change and was not allowed to.
@@teekanne15 unfortunately that is not an issue specific to academia and is a broader issue caused by governing systems.
At the very least, in the case of climate change, there is not much of a shortage of varying studies due to incentives from large fossil corporations. And opposing incentives from international treaties.
@@Lscott-fk2sn agree 100% its a general human issue with the formation of a guiding opinion that is hard uncomfortable to challange. The thing is that because of fossile fuel companies its hard to do those studies without looking biased.
Because it's often how they're taught to write their papers. Come up with a hypothesis, then go find facts to back it up, or do research to prove the theory.
(Yes I may have switched hypothesis and theory)
That moment you realize that most people argue through these fallacies...almost with pride, instead of avoiding them.
They use them to brag xd only
Most people don't focus on constructing an academic debate. The goal is not to write an effective paper, their goal is to be understood as a person. Since most people's thoughts are conducted by their emotions and emotions, therefore, are automatically valid, they are under the false impression that if they can make you understand their emotions, then you too will understand that what they believe is obviously the correct belief.
That's a fallacy. Most people don't have the time or understanding to know and avoid fallacys. Some fallacys in my opinion is not a real fallacy. Take slippery slope.
It's so true...
I mean, even that comment is riddled with fallacy and they do seem particularly proud!
Oh no! Did I just use a fallacy? Crap... How do I get out of this?!
Oh well, it is what it is!
@@ashlevrieri see what you did there😏😏😏
Man, this should be stickied in every discussion forum. People LOVE using strawman and ad hominem and when you point it out instead whine about being outed.
It’s a common mark of narcisists or sociopaths, they will try to make you feel bad and guilty, victimising themselves for making them more conscious of their lapses in reason
@@Tudorgeablehow are you even supposed to win an argument with those kinda of people. it seems narcissism is a pandemic
@@cyb3rb3rri87 It only seems like a pandemic because "narcissist" is so overused now by people trying to sound scientific/intelligent when someone just did something a bit selfish. People who throw around this term have likely never encountered a real one. Real narcissists are virtually in their own world and it's quite jarring to see in action.
@@cyb3rb3rri87You can’t, it’s just like playing chess with a chicken.
Biden's america
I love how I’m not even a minute in and I feel every debate is this personified.
I'm in debate. It literally is 💀💀
Fallacy fallacy being at the end is a cruel joke to anyone who leaves the video too early, and that’s kinda funny
The Chainmail Fallacy: The assumption that because one’s argument for a position is invalid, their entire position is invalid. An example is “That one picture of the Loch Ness Monster was fake, so the Loch Ness Monster must also be fake.” The name comes from treating arguments like links in chainmail. If you remove a single link, you still have a study chainmail at the end. It’s related to the Fallacy Fallacy.
That would be related to the Fallacy Fallacy, I believe.
It's related to the fallacy fallacy, but it's still nice to see it explained so nicely! Great job!
@@ThePaintExplainer There’s also The Gaps Fallacy, which I have another comment on and was surprised was not mentioned.
The Loch Ness Monster is, as we know, fake for other reasons (no other photos have been taken that haven’t also been shown to be fabricated, explorations of the loch showed no signs of Nessie, etc.)
Not wanting to get political but I've seen many Turks using this one to deny the Armenian g3nocid3
Simple and snappy yet in-depth and accurate enough to be useful, I hope this channel grows exponentially.
Much appreciated!
@@ThePaintExplainer no problem!
:)
well, it does grow exponentially... rightly so...
I'd loved it if you added the "begging the question" fallacy as I haven't grabbed its essence yet
@@younesabid5481, what it’s written in the Bible is nothing but the truth, because in the Bible itself says so, of course
These are my favorite Pokémon types! Thanks for explaining them!
Wow! The information is so dense that I spent an hour just watching and taking notes. It'll likely take me even more time to fully digest it all
You should do a “every objection in court explained” (Relevance, compound question, asked and answered, etc.) I think it would work well with your format.
Yes
Attack ad-eminem and de-facto tu-quoque fallacy, Your argument is REJECTED.
Yep
@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii Run-on sentence; your argument is invalid.
@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii
Ad-eminem fallacy:
When you accuse your opponent that his palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy; there's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti 😂
Ad Hominem is just absolutely hilarious to me because I think it works just not in the way it’s supposed to. Imagine someone’s trying to tell me that bananas are yellow and the other dude just goes “HE HAS A BALDING HAIRLINE DUDE DONT LISTEN TO HIM” then I can’t take anyone seriously anymore. Also it’s peak immaturity and I love it.
Twitter's favorite logical fallacy
@@Jack.Strait Real
@@Jack.Strait Real
@@Jack.Strait*I like pancakes.*
@@Jack.Strait I'm no Dream supporter, but I see this all the time recently from Dream haters who don't even have proper criticisms to throw out there. "I don't like him, therefore he is objectively ugly!" "I don't like him, therefore he is a breadophile!" etc. It's like, y'all are allowed to not like him (god knows I don't), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to be a dick. Then these same people will turn around and preach "body positivity" like they didn't just mock the most average-looking man who looks like most white men 💀
Twitter is nothing but a hypocritical cesspool of mouth breathers and cocomelon addicts
Your observation hits the nail on the head! It's a fascinating split between the consequences of a lack of critical thinking and the impact of genuinely mean-spirited individuals. Addressing logical fallacies, like the 'fallacy fallacy,' adds another layer to the discussion-acknowledging that while a fallacy doesn't inherently disprove an argument, it invites scrutiny. This comment is a gem for fostering more thoughtful and respectful discourse.
This should be a staple in every discussion - a brilliant breakdown of common fallacies! It's disheartening to see how often strawman and ad hominem get thrown around. Your point about the lack of critical thinking and genuine meanness driving these behaviors is spot on. The "fallacy fallacy" placement is particularly insightful - acknowledging that using a logical fallacy doesn't automatically make someone wrong, but it invites closer scrutiny. Great insight into the dynamics of online discussions!
When there are other videos on YT that run for seven minutes or more just to tell you one thing, this video is a revelation of how it CAN be done ... no tedious "let's get right into it" intros, no pointless padding or tedious attempts at humour. Super-high signal to noise ratio! I subscribed and liked WITHOUT being told to!
That's a "suck off the UA-camr" fallacy.
@@carldrogo9492 or a nice compliment
@@carldrogo9492more like a phallusy lmao
sunk cost fallacy
it does come at a cost, though. A ton of people in comments (like the person above me) seem to either barely or not at all understand some of the fallacies, which could've been avoided with a longer video. Still a good one, but there are a few misses
The Strawman fallacy is a weird one in debate spaces because it's simultaneously one of the most commonly correctly recognised and one of the most common to accuse someone of incorrectly...
accuracy by volume
I was once accused of using a Straw Man when I was explaining my own position.
@@brianwagner781 Yeah that happens... a lot...
Sometimes people seem to use it to just mean "weak argument." They just love throwing around the word "strawman" so much that they seem to redefine it so that they can say it more.
@@alansmithee419 when I took a critical thinking class in college and first learned about some of these, the idea was to personally become a more disciplined thinker. I get the impression debate students often skip that part and are just looking for a stick to wield against others.
That one is the most common but it's because of another fallacy underneath it. Which is the false assumption that one is correctly interpreting reality. Example: A religious person vs a woke person trying to determine what is true. But neither can accurately understand the other because they interpret reality differently. One is created by God, the other is not. Therefore, their conclusions and the logic that leads them to it are not the same.
So it's not that they are necessarily misrepresenting your position to buy rather, you are not even talking about the same thing. You're using the same words but having a different meaning within the context of their worldview.
Absolutely! These insights are a much-needed guide for online discussions. It brilliantly dissects the pitfalls between a lack of critical thinking and genuine hostility. Refreshing content on UA-cam with no frills, just straight to the point and educational.
And not just online but irl too, can't tell you the number of occasions I'll explain, in detail, what the broader logical fallacy they are proposing is, but to have just two words to precisely surmise it, pinpoint it - brilliant! Makes you feel like your time and effort put into making conversations better really pays off, being more witty, more knowledgeable and empowered - and you can share your knowledge with others too. I just wish people were more thoughtful!
You will get better at discerning if the argument is a fallacy or contains a fallacy when dealing with flat earthers and young earth creationists, but sometimes they are both at the same time
@@kaliban4758Personally, I don't bother with them. To even entertain their premise is to give some modicum of credit to it, which I flatly refuse to do, as it's just a strategy for them to feel special, unique or go against the masses, they know it's bullshit, no need to prove anything imho. It's more pertinent with Kremlinbots and pro-Russia/China commenters to let others see how people can defend our democracies, even with words, and counter the whataboutisms & ridicule the snarky comments (almost always accompanied with a smiley emoji). Honestly recon UA-cam should have a system like Reddit, where you get downvoted for being a bot and your comment goes to the bottom of the page automatically.
@kaliban4758 Had some interesting debates with flat earthers. They were incorrect in the end, but their intelligent arguments forced me to doubt myself and conduct experiments that taught me a little more about science.
Though, in the end, they never admitted they lost the argument. Sadly, it seems there are a handful of very intelligent people who understand math and scientific studies, but still refuse to believe anything that they cannot witness directly.
One of the best yt channels out there nowadays. Good job man
One thing I think is important for people who don't study philosophy to know, is that most people use fallacies unknowingly. That doesn't make them valid, it just doesn't mean they are bad or dumb for using a fallacy.
Yeah, I mean, we are only human, after all.
Exactly!
Hence, the "fallacy fallacy"
@@averygamerdude7911not that song but i agree
it just feels empty without "after all" even if its not a song
One of my favorites is the motte-and-bailey fallacy, in which someone starts with a controversial opinion, but pretends to have a much more modest and defensible position when challenged.
Andrew Tate
that's the one politicians and the media use daily
Might be simply hyperbole sometimes. I often like to point out minor errors without caring for the issue either way very much.
I learned something new thanks to your comment. Thanks :)
Sounds like a bait and switch
this is an awesome and infintely rewatchable video. honestly good enough to fall asleep to
What’s really scary is that a lot of people have learned to sound really convincing even if they use these methods all the time.
It's because the person using them is any of htese things or a combination of them.
Tall so appears more commanding, authoritative, in power etc. People submit to a tall person more likely or afraid he would knock them out.
Attractive. You want to always side with who is more attractive so they are free to make up a lot of fallacies and people believe them.
Nepotism: Always appeals to big organizations or anyone reprseenting them like the US Marines, Government, etc.
Bench appearo
that's basically joe rogan lmao
@bizznicki444joe7 I think you are currently doing multiple fallacies
I can highly recommend cranky uncle to you. It's an education app that focuses on teaching how to spot logical fallacies in conversations. It had such a marked impact on how I view discussions in my day-to-day life. I haven't used it in a while but when I was using it a lot I was such a pain in every political discussion in my friend group it was a true joy!
There's also the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy, where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial and harder to defend. If someone challenges the claim, the arguer can say the challenger is arguing for the controversial stance and can refute any arguments for the easier stance.
Huh
what would an example be like
so it's like if someone was arguing that kids should experience consequences for their actions and another person conflates that to child abuse?
@@pigston Reminds me of Andrew Tate a bit
Sounds like a Strawman with an extra step
This is why I quit my middle school's debate team. The teacher in charge of it literally hand-picked me after one of my argumentative essays caught her eye. I showed up to the meeting and the teacher had me do a debate with one of the members. I had an actual argument, evidence, and I was cordial the entire time. My opponent basically went through this entire list of fallacies, which I then shot down, before giving up and behaving like a bratty child. He started telling everyone that if they didn't support his side of the debate, then he wouldn't be friends with any of them anymore. He was apparently the best on the debate team, and I humilated him within 5 minutes of being there. Luckily, he got to keep his title because I grabbed my stuff and I walked straight out. The teacher stopped me and asked me what was wrong and I told her that I'd come back to the debate team once they actually knew how to properly debate and have an informative conversation rather than childishly insulting their opponent and using fallacies to make up for the fact that they had no evidence to support their side.
And then like a year later i ended up in a mental hospital because extreme depression. Go figure.
was the depression from you losing a debate
I really relate to your story! I was looking forward to "being an adult" so hard when I was in school, because I thought "actual adults" would of course understand these fallacies. Even without being in a debate team or smth (we didnt have such a thing). Discussing anything with people was always sooo exhausting. And then came the university and the first job and I was still surrounded by angry children :(
This is why I hate politics and just cannot spend any time on that, cause it is just ridiculous how these people talk to each other.
Nerd!
(Ad hominem question mark question mark 🤔)
Debates are awesome and all students should learn to debate. Now, I am not in anyway in support of that idiot who won debates or the poorly-educated person who decided that the best debater should be the most idiotic sounding person of the bunch (note: being able to spill out debate winning points like a machine gun has less value than attending an oration class by Donald J Trump).
True debates should be one where there are at least 6 sides, and participants should be assigned randomly to sides that they feel have a disadvantage in the chance to win the debate. One winner should be based on oration skills. Another different winner should be based on written course work, where the quality of logic displayed and the amount of research done is judged. However, the main purpose for all the students to participate is to instill a habit of thinking in terms of all sides equally and objectively before engaging in an argument, which is a waste of time… just like the current state of debate which is a waste of time.
For topics with the dominant 2 sides, I rather preferred an accused approach. The accused approach is a debate of one person by himself. A way to view this sort of debate (because we want to teach kids how to think, not to hate thinking): a person is accused of one thing and so he must convince his peers that he is not that something. However, he can only win after a thorough thought process where he must also think equally in terms of his accuser without disparaging his accuser. Usually, ended with the statement "When one is wrong, does it mean the other party is right? No, it only means that HE is only ignorant. I am accused of being in the wrong and I have proved that I am not of ignorance. For whether it is thru bashful youth, prideful nobility, or genuine love for his father, that led my accuser to do what he had done, I asked that he be forgiven today."
@thecoolman555 lmao nah bro, the depression was from my genetics and a bunch of my family dying
This video is great and very informative. I felt like I really needed it.
I've fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy a lot myself. Mostly out of spite or stubbornness.
Same, I felt really called out lmao
Me too, play some war thunder
Dont worry, Game companies use this to create exit barrier. You cant let go of a game since there is too many time and money you spend for it already. You cant stop and must do the daily grind to keep up, OR ALL THOSE STUFF YOU DID WILL BE IRRELEVANT. Blizzard is well known to this.
On another example. Thats why companies never count the money that have been spent before this point to reach a decision in their finance. If a project might have to be stopped to cut loss, they can not looking at how all this time that project spent the capitals.
I’ve had this with a couple of shows. For me, Steven Universe was a big one. I didn’t like the direction but I kept watching because I had spent years waiting on episodes.
It's almost as like you bring the beer to a party and none drinks it, so you are "coerced" to dribk it all by yourself despite the cost.
It's crazy how many of these you can see being used constantly by many, many people. Online, in person, fallacies are everywhere
yea it's not that people use these fallacies after looking them up, we just naturally use them and debaters put a label on them after observing and defining the fallacy.
I think this is why presidential debates are worthless: they have too many of the fallacies in play.
Religion, politics, commercials, apologists, conspiracies,..... the list is quite long.
They lie, either to you, themselves or both. Or are just dumb ;-)
@@WanderTheNomadYeah!
like 'the bible is true because its the word of gawd.' how do you know? 'it says so in the bible'
how many BILLIONS don't see the issue here!?
@@CyberBeep_kenshiI have never, EVER, in my life, have seen someone say such sentence. I think they meant stuff logically, such as “Why would the disciples fake Jesus’ resurrection? It would benefit them more to not say anything than to claim that he is risen, even if he did rise up.”
The book “I don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” has some logical explanations and non biblical evidence to prove the truth of the Bible. It’s a good read.
your channel is a masterpiece i will watch all of ur videos :D
Dude these videos just are so enjoyable for me and I do not know why
The nirvana fallacy is very dangerous one giving the fact that it sometimes prevent society from taking important decisions because "yeah, people will find a way around it anyway"
is this the nirvana fallacy? -> If you ban guns, it's not going to stop mass murderers, so we should make sure everyone has a gun & is ready to use it
Game piracy:
They always throw this one out when talking about abortion
^ both failures to grasp what the nirvana fallacy is
@@custos3249im pretty sure they did grasp what it is lol
There's also the bandwagon fallacy, which is a logical fallacy by supporting of argument using popularity, aka peer pressure. Like "most teens smoke. I'm a teen, therefore i should smoke."
That's something akin to appeal to authority, except the authority in question are your peers.
@@StrikeNoir105E moreso an ecology fallacy or the composition fallacy
Yep, consensus is another popular term used by those who use that fallacy.
I've heard about this in video "Every bias explained in 8 minutes"
Ad populum is what you're looking for
Ive been looking for a vidoe like this. Thank you.
The fact that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy singles out Texans is hilarious, although not entirely fair 🤣.
Tfw Texas sharpshooter fallacy is named using the ecological fallacy
4:37 Small correction: The sunk cost fallacy actually goes in both directions. The much more common direction is the one described here, where one defends continuing to invest resources in an endeavor based on the fact that resources have already invested. The other direction is arguing against the investment of further resources based on previous costs, rather than the potential cost vs. returns ratio of the next investment.
Just to make sure I understand the full scope, would this fallacy also be used to describe someone who just started investing resources and then said since its early on it's justified giving up?
Put it in your video, then. He can't just read all of Wikipedia and fit it into the video.
He was very brief about every single one of these, so it's kinda weird that you felt like this one in particular needed to go longer.
Nice!
@@B3Band 'instead of correcting him, do it yourself' i feel like theres a logical fallacy somewhere there...
Wouldn't that be more like Gambler's fallacy where past events are used to justify a future action (or lack thereof)?
I really like the last one fallacy fallacy because it really wraps everything up, meaning even if one of these fallacies happen, doesn’t mean it’s wrong
Right, but it does mean they haven't met their burden of proof.
Im glad. It hopefully stops some smart arses from trying to dissect conversation tactics rather than the argument itself.
@@TeamBaconUKindeed.
@@tykejack "The sky is blue" Why? "Because God made it that way" Contains a logical fallacy, but is indeed true the sky is blue.
@@Purpless_ON
You still haven' t met your burden of proof. When it's overcast, the sky is gray. At sunrise and sunset the sky is purple, yellow, orange, pink, and/or red. At night, the sky is black. Outside of all of that, the "sky" doesn't actually have a color since it's a matter of how light interacts with air molecules.
I don't know how this has anything to do with the fallacy fallacy and you meeting your burden of proof.
you have to be my new favorite explain-er
Rahh, this is very informative thank you! But also hard to watch, because I keep thinking about all the times others, or I, have done these. Let's learn!
Since you aim to educate about these many various items, here's a suggestion - leave the text on the screen a bit longer after you finish speaking. There is a cognitive conflict between trying to get what you say and at the same time seeing it explained visually and trying to get the meaning there. Even if the visuals are describing the same thing as your voice, they present a different look at the same thing and the brain (at least mine) doesn't grasp both at the same time, in such a short time window, especially for never heard-off items.
Still great list and explanations (if I pause the video), thank you.
This, I try to understand what is shown once it appears while also listening to what is being said, and most of the time it's really hard to connect the both and it turns out in a scrumbled mess which makes me re-watch it while only listening, and then only trying to understand the situation in the drawing
Yep same, I had to hit pause or hit 10sec backwards to re listen or see the images.
A little ways into the video, I changed the speed to 75%, and that seemed to give me the time I wanted to absorb the ideas.
Same! It would have been nice to explain the fallacy first then show the example. The video was great though! Love to see a more in depth version of this, you can make it by parts so that it wouldn't be too long.
just boosting this comment
I absolutely detest the "entitled to opinion' fallacy.
It's used by people who don't wanna think about their arguments from a rational point of view.
Thinking is hard, can't blame them
Human rationale is also inherently non-perfect ....it's a fun old world
IMHO that's not so much a fallacy but the end to an argument. When someone insists on his point because he believes in it, it's just better to give up.
Rationalism isn't inherently good. When you realize just how few things in the world, universe, and about existence we can possibly know for certain, you quickly realize that deeply held rationalism is just as absurd as those who refuse rationale for feeling and whims. There is a balance between it all that a minute few are even able to hold.
@@bbbbbbb51I mean that’s great and all, “perfection doesn’t exist in nature” but when someone just straight up doesn’t wanna listen to a real discussion because it’s “their opinion” then it’s a problem
It was a bombardment of useful information I will watch it again😊
I was looking for the name of a fallacy I remember talking about in college. It has to do with swapping meaning using words that have multiple definitions. Example.
the word
1.) Manipulation can mean to handle or control something (or someone) skillfully
2.) to control or influence a person or situation unfairly or unscrupulously
I've seen this used to attack people who present a skillful, logical argument to someone because they are 'handling them skillfully' (1) therefore they are manipulating said individual(2)
My man, I didnt even know what a 'logical fallacy' was. Now I know so much. You have successfully outperformed most of my teachers
that's a fallacy
@@serbrawl7981 how so?
@@freerobux49it’s all a fallacy it always was
@@freerobux49do you have proof that is not?
@@rake10 do you have proof that it is?
I just realized I have been using appeal to consequences quite a bit. Honestly just seeing it being described opened my eyes
Some of these are not even fallacies they are just argument types. 🤷
@@carldrogo9492weak/flawed ones at that
What? (Carl) Please elaborate
@@carldrogo9492 Argument types of people who are really bad at actual good arguments, yes.
@@AdelaeR Lol sounds like they're one such person.
the examples for each one are so helpful
I'm glad you brought up Bulverism because it gave me a flashback to an example of it.
My grandparents are really diehard Catholics, and one time I was arguing with them about whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I cited that the American Psychological Association said that it isn't a choice. My grandmother literally, in response, said "Oh, then the head of the APA must be gay." (implying that it's an ideologically charged moved based on identity rather than one rooted in truth).
A lot of parts of this video remind me of my grandparents actually. They're extremely terrible at rhetoric.
The Texas Sharpshooter is something that happens to me a lot without me knowing. I would search up specific questions not knowing that I did not consider other factors.
Me “ gives statistics and a logical argument”
My opponent “ you’re gay”
or edits the comment with "gay the one who respond to this comment"
“Objection: I mean, look at him!”
“He talks like a f@g, too”
Bro felt the gay fallacy
He's not wrong
Ur opponent is smarter
This is so incredibly informative!
Great video. It’s funny how spmuch cross over there is between many of these, for example association, composition, division, correlation and cause…
As someone who grew up with three elder brothers in an argumentative family, we had to suffer through alot of these logical fallacies in arguments. It feels powerful being able to tell someone that you see right through their argumentation error since you know exactly its called and because it is completely nonsensical and unfair. Only the truth and helpfulness shall prevail.
Truth prevails brother
@@vojtechurbanec9886 “Truth is a funny thing. Does it live in the world, or in the mind? Is it constant, or can it be bent?”
It's extremely tiring living with a confrontational person who always falls back to fallacies and gets offended if you don't value talking to them anymore. I get you man.
I feel like you can never win with these people because they aren’t aware of the fallacies and they don’t think they’re doing anything wrong
Would this not be a fallacy fallacy? Lol
The most important thing to note about the slippery slope is that it isn’t a fallacy unless the conclusion doesn’t draw logically from the available information. Taking something to its logical conclusion is considered a logical argument and the slippery slope has been documented as real many times.
This is also true for a few other fallacies, if done logically they are perfect valid. For example, ad-hominem in a lot of circumstances is completely unrelated, but if you bring up someone's past actions related to the topic it isn't ad-hominem as there is a logical reason behind doing so (i.e. if someone is known to lie about the results of sports matches, it is a valid thing to bring up when debating that person about the results of sports matches, however that doesn't immediately nullify their argument as that's a fallacy in itself).
I'm pretty sure you are both bringing up the fallacy fallacy. Just because it uses a fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong.
@@queen-lilyorjiako268 Except it may not he a fallacy at all that is being used. Slippery Slope Fallacy is a commonish fallacy to accuse someone of on the Internet because the arguer doesn't like where the "slippery slope" is going.
The issue with slippery slope often isn’t that slippery slopes don’t exist, it’s that you can use slippery slope to fallaciously argue against almost anything even when like the next step you’re worried about is a whole new situation that would require a different analysis. It’s important to acknowledge that slippery slopes can exist because that helps prevent them, but paradoxically the argument also gets in the way of perfectly valid and rational actions because “well if we do this it opens the door to this other thing”
@@longislandlegoboy it's only applicable to drawing a conclusion when it doesn't make sense
the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason, but for example saying burn coal->climate gets warmer->ice disappears->cute arctic animals go extinct is technically a slippery slope according to some people
Actually its so important that we recognize when there fallacies happen so that we can actually get into some honest arguments
Lets be honest. We're all mainly here to learn how we can argue with others on comment sections of social media so we can "win" But reality is, we're shouldn't be learning how to argue, we should be learning how to communicate better.
I genuinely have encountered almost every one of these at some point, so thanks for this video. I have a gut feeling this video is going to be referenced hundreds of times.
Hard to express how relieved I am to have the term tone policing under my belt. Something I've suffered from growing up without having a word for it
Me too. The amount of times people have purposefully gone out of their way to upset me, only for me to get upset and call them out on what they did, only for them to say "wow relax you shouldn't talk to me like that, it hurts my feelings". Like bitch if you don't....
@@nomoretwitterhandles wow relax you shouldn't talk to me like that, it hurts my feelings.
Same!
@@nomoretwitterhandles But I have to say, this fallacy made me really hope for the "Fallacy fallacy" to also be present, which it was! Yay!
Because I have to say, that often anger makes discussions spiral out of control and unproductive. I worked hard on myself as it happened, that my discussion partner was getting angry, which made me angry, just to be then tone policed and called out by the other for being angry. When I started analyzing myself, why I even became angry I finally noticed that the other was the one starting. This realization enabled me to notice this and from there on call the other person out on their anger first while keeping my calm. So basically do "tone policing" but I'd argue, totally justified in this case.
Agreed. We often argue about things we care about. We cannot, therefore, always remain entirely logical. Emotion does exist. We are human after all.
For example:
-A is using B's frustration as evidence that B is being dishonest.
"He wouldn't have been so defensive if he wasn't hiding something!"
-A mistreats B, but A also uses B's frustration to frame themself as the victim.
"I dehumanized you but you didn't sugar-coat your words. You are clearly the aggressor!"
-Treating a hyperbole or metaphor, particularly one that's obvious or has been clarified to be a figure of speech, as though it is completely serious. This antagonizes your opponent, turning the topic away from their argument.
I would prefer a world where everyone was exclusively dedicated to logic. It would be most efficient.
But most people we argue with are not scientists, nor are they robots, nor are they Vulcans. We need to consider context and others' perspectives if we hope to actually have meaningful debate.
Extremely interesting videos ! 👍
Im my highschool philosophy classes, our teacher taught us all of these fallacies and then had a debate with the whole class where he would argue for or against any prompt we gave him against the whole class. Of course we gave him hard things to argue, "smoking should be legal for kids", "Canada should join the US [I'm Canadian]," "Extreme sports should be illegal" and in every case he always destroyed the whole class.
It was an incredibly important lesson we learned that, just because you can make a sound argument with little to no fallacies, doesn't make you correct. It just means you're good at debating, and that's it.
I stumbled upon this channel yesterday and was led by disappointment knowing that it’s a new channel - I can’t binge 💀
I know it is so sad, but in the future others can binge it
@@iluvpandas2755 ikr? Its so good!
the fact they bursted on the scene with immediate bangers is crazy, when I started making videos they were literally so ass I cringed while making them
This is probably my new favourite channel on UA-cam. Very eductional, no long intro, and the information is delivered in a very short and concise way.
I liked and subscribed because the video didn't tell me to like and subscribe.
Cherry picking fallacy jkjk
I'm so glad you did this video. I knew plenty of these before knowing their names or how to define them bc I can sniff out bullshit, but was only taught a few in school
Great video. Very concise. I miss this kind of UA-cam
This video just made me realize how much of these politicians use to discredit others instead of countering the said point 😭😭😭
Maturity is when you realize that democracy is an idiotic bandwagon fallacy.
Politics is about influencing people, and fallacies are flaws that exist in everyone's thinking, so it's the perfect tool for politics. The reason we've identified all these isn't so we won't use them in a debate, it's so we'll be able to avoid them in research. In a debate they're actually super effective if the audience can't detect them.
@@daniel4647 "flaws that exist in everyone's thinking" is a hasty generalization fallacy.
@@user-qd4td7yb8ethats a fallacy fallacy, youre assuming that the statement is wrong because there is a fallacy, though the statement is generally considered correct.
@@Deeshirethat's a fallacy fallacy fallacy
More people need to know about these. They happen all the time and people legitimately don't ever question their own logic.
Some of these aren't logical fallacies though, unless he explained them wrong. For example the "definist fallacy" isn't a fallacy because the definitions assigned to words and vise versa are arbitrary. To call it a fallacy would be arguing semantics which ironically is a logical fallacy.
I think you’re right to a certain extent. I’ve seen people try to make arguments by defining things into existence. During a religious debate stream I saw a few months back, the theist argued that god was the universe itself, and since we know the universe exists, then their god must also exist. Obviously, most people who talk about belief in god aren’t imagining just regular reality, but something supernatural, so this caller was clearly trying to define god into existence. This also often gets paired with the equivocation fallacy, since the caller, once they defined god as just the universe, proceeded to make the assumption that they had proved the existence of a supernatural being. I learned a lot about logic and fallacies from these streams.
@@cobblegen1204the fallacy there would be eqiuvocation; defining a word and and then using it interchangably with something dissimilar. Defining new words during arguments is never a fallacy, and should not be stigmatized, as conceptual engineering is one of the most important tools at the philosopher's disposal.
@@f.b.i6889why would arguing semantics be a fallacy? It seems like it's a pre-requisite to steelman another point of view before you can even consider something an argument. I'd actually be interested in literature that negates semantics, you could source one.
Yeah. This made me realise how much I suffer from these fallacies myself
This for real gon be a super weapon against my own self-doubt, negativity, n biases
There is another. No Limits Fallacy. A fallacy that claims that because the limit of something hasn’t been found or shown that the thing shown has no limit.
That's just a form of appeal to ignorance, is it not?
@@Anvilshock it’s a fallacy of ignorance
Should be called Calculus Fallacy
@@DonutMaster56 why?
I looked at the child's height chart from ages 1 to 10, and estimated by the the time the child turns 40, he will be 86 feet tall.
Need more videos like this nowadays, to the point, no fluff, just well made good content
Theres fluff in му ЬаIIς
@@David280GG I got some in my c88chie
The best fallacy is clearly the fallacy fallacy which gives you some breathing room on your fallacies to not completely fallacy. Excellent. Cool stuff thanks for the video
it also logical invalidates the whole list.
@@Mcpwnt The Fallacy Fallacy is just a failsafe in case someone tries to argue that because that the other person is wrong because they made a logical fallacy. One can make a correct conclusion despite having made a logical fallacy, the existence of said fallacy just means that they arrived at that conclusion via incorrect or faulty premises. Fallacies are all about the logical process, not the conclusion.
@@StrikeNoir105E this list is filled with informal fallacies, not logical ones. Nice try tho.
@@Mcpwntit doesn't invalidate the list. You can still use the list to point out weak arguments, the list was never designed to invalidate someone's conclusion(s) just the path(s) they take to get to said conclusion(s).
@@arcguardian If title says thing is A and thing is A and B with B titled as A is A, A?
ambiguity was so funny even tho i don't know the beatles
keep up the good work man
you propably rearrange the order of those andthey take like 6 hours to make a 10 min vid
you are the best teacher out there🙏
The fallacy fallacy is probably one of the most used yet also one that often goes unnoticed
This seems like a potentially helpful reference for improving one's own arguments, but I would caution that calling people out when they use fallacies usually backfires.
Usually when I see these mentioned in the wild, it is either just a name drop or a possibly a link to the definition of the alleged fallacy. Rarely do people bother to show how the argument in question fails.
Also, the absolute strongest thing that such a call out can logically prove is that a belief is poorly argued. It never disproves the underlying belief. If someone has five reasons to believe something and the one that is easiest to explain is logically shaky in the way they tried to explain it, it may be rational to be a little less confident in the belief or add qualifiers to it, but it would not be rational to abandon it entirely. By bringing up fallacies, you risk derailing the discussion towards the nature of discussion rather than the topic previously discussed.
It also often comes across as a personal attack. If not worded with the utmost care, such a call out may be interpreted as an insult to the intelligence of the interlocutor. Insulting someone doesn't automatically make the rest of your argument wrong, but it frequently makes it utterly unpersuasive.
Finally, formal debate is a rare form of conversation, even when people disagree. Most people just aren't looking to get into a word fight most of the time, and telling people they broke the rules to a game they weren't playing and have never studied isn't going to make you the kind of friends that listen to your views when there is disagreement.
That's probably true, but you can still point out their ad hominem. That;s pretty simple :)
"By bringing up fallacies, you risk derailing the discussion towards the nature of discussion rather than the topic previously discussed." Very well stated. Being able to hear someone past what they're saying is so invaluable. And then, being humble enough to move past anything that didn't help you hear it is what moves things forward.
I agree with you. Pointing out the fallacy can devolve into argument about the nature of the discussion rather than the assumption being made. I don’t agree that you can never disprove a belief by pointing out the fallacy in question. In many cases, a person can give up a position simply by pointing out the flaw in their reasoning. Not always of course, but certainly not never.
fallacy hunting itself can also be seen as a form of tone policing or possibly appeal to accomplishment. Knowing and calling out logical fallacies doesn't make your argument any more qualified than the person making fallacies. It also doesn't positively serve your credibility if all you do is call out semantics against unprepared opinions rather than actually coming up with informative, logically sound, and constructive opinions.
I love this format
I wish I could remember them all, maybe have a card deck end just hit the opponent with a card everytime they use one.
That's the most soy thing I've ever heard in my entire life, congratulations
Fallacy Fallacy.
This video is reminiscent of older YT content. It's very direct and rigorous in speech. I was able to quickly replay the bits I didn't understand several times to recap and self teach if I didn't grasp the explanation given. For what could easily underdtand, it wasn't a waste of time either. Your style of presentation is also masterful. Your infographics communicate ideas or information simply without excess visuals to distract from the salient data. Another common mistake is also death by powerpoint which you avoid unless absolutely nessecary like the ski instructor = job example. People don't need to be told to like and subscribe if the content is good enough.
Stfu kid you don't know anything
Except its AI generated ....completely almost....
This guy is trying to politically influence you
(He thinks all white people are racist)
@Th3EnterNal No its not
@@ellotheearthling The voice certainly is. Also most likely the script.
i love this channel, especially how you cover alot of different topics but stay within the same simple format!
You’re good. I’d love to see you making a video on master suppression techniques, too. Cheers.
Damn, we at one point have seen these logical fallacies yet do not know their names, very informative video!
what on earth, ive just checked your channel and youve got a 100000 subscribers off 5 videos? and in like 2 weeks??? great work pal youve really got the youtube algorithm by the balls. your video format is an incredible combination of both simplicicty and complexity which makes it easy to delve into interesting topics and continue watching more, plus it helps youve got a nice voice. amazing work mate
Thank you so much ❤️
Whenever I see any sort of content on logical fallacies, they often times (more often than not) forget the Fallacy Fallacy lol. Glad to see you didn't leave it out. It's the one that sort of tempers all the rest IMO.
Just because you spot someone has one or more of these logical fallacies in their argument, does not immediately negate their conclusions. They can still, ultimately have the right conclusion.
Watching all of these videos.
This is some useful information
I always touch up on this video so I don't end up looking like a moron when debating. appreciate you man
I'm a graphic designer and this is one of the best uses of Comic Sans I've ever seen. It's a font that gets a lot of hate but, as with most things, it's about how you use it. And the graphics work really well with the font.
comic sans makes me laugh, not papyrus though
That’s what you got out of this?
@@Kevin-xk3me It's one of the things he got from the video. A comment can point out any of the good aspects of a video, even if said aspect is completely unrelated to the video's topic.
I didn't even notice it was comic sans.
the world would be a better place if everbody had to learn these at school in every class every year
There will be also people that learned these that weaponizes them. The wrong way.
@@kagemushashien8394better to have a population that can recognize this, than the opposite
They do teach them and in a weaponized fashion to support the global cult of materialism, death worship, and anti-theism
@@kagemushashien8394people do weaponise these. They just don't know the specific names.
@@minnigmanmad Then how do we deal with those that weaponize these, always invalidating arguments because of one fallacy, won't understand the point of the other(s) who are arguing, always hoping to spot a fallacy to get the "moral" high ground because they can construct better sentences than others.
It's like trying to deal with someone in Yugioh who's deck is 90% hand traps, if you don't know what I mean basically someone who's only goal in the argument is to spot fallacies and not deal with the argument itself, it won't go anywhere if one side is always invalidating the others argument because of fallacies, granted there ARE some fallacies that needs to be address, but can they move on from the inconvenience?
Honestly it always seems one sided.
My minds not whole today, along with I just woke up, so if this does not make sense then the original point I made with my other comment is lost in my head.
I'm glad they caught on to this exploit loop and made Fallacy Fallacy, because sometimes even if there is a fallacy, there's a point to be made and etc. Not everyone is fluent in the art of arguing, and it's best not to antagonise those who haven't studied in a high pay school just to learn about fallacies.
TL;DR I have mix feelings when pointing out fallacies, especially being a jerk and just pointing them out and not pointing at the destination the argument should be going. There might be a better word and definition for these kind of people but I don't know what.
*post hoc fallacy left the chat*
Thanks for this!
It should be frowned upon to call an argument a type of fallacy without explaining why that argument is that kind of fallacy.
I concur.
Bad argument =/ fallacy
Counterpoint: I don't have the time nor energy to explain all the fallacies in someone's argument, so it's easier to just say their argument sucks.
@@Marcelelias11 counterpoint:
@@Marcelelias11 Well then you shouldn't expect them to have the time or energy to take your counter argument seriously.
Actually one of my new favorite channels, I like how nicely and simply you explain things, subbed
That entire video I was like "Will they mention the Fallacy Fallacy?" bro had me on the edge of my seat the entire time
My ADHD loves this video fast and lots of info on a topic - thank you
Brilliant video. I had to keep rewinding to listen again to the explanation or read the examples. Very informative and entertaining.
That's because your slow and need brain medication
I had to keep rewinding just to perfect my trolling skills.
Thanks for the checklist, this makes my 100% fallacy speedrun more manageable
I wonder what the most concise piece of text or example would be that contains every fallacy mentioned in this video
@@purplesky135"eww no" should include at least most
@@purplesky135 that would be very interesting to read if someone did write that
I didn't know TV Tropes was doing videos for indexes but I'm here for it.
And how about the "ingredients you can pronounce" fallacy from Chipotle and every self-appointed nutrition expert...
(Appeal to nature subtrope?)
Entitled to my opinion is UA-cams most used fallacy.
Quick and to the point. I’ve listened to so many examples of these over my life. Thanks for the explanations without any additional fluff.