The most common one I run into is the NAWALT argument (not all women are like that). It is usually, though not exclusively, employed by female debaters. It consists of refuting a statistical argument or generalization by producing a single contrary instance, and triumphantly assuming victory. One contrary does not disprove a generalization. “Most East Indians have brown eyes”. “False! I once met a man born in Bombay who had blue eyes!”
yeah, a lot of people like that …. it’s a commonly used argument regarding military service ….. just because 1 in 100 women can meet the physical standards of the infantry does not mean that women should be in the infantry
I am working on something that seems pretty impossible. Almost the entire online discourse I receive mimics a denial of service attack, basically if discovery or conversation’s a service they use tactics to deny service which include building firewalls to keep from experiencing enthusiasm or embarrassment. It makes sense that they protect their status and position inside the network, and most likely my error is in approach and the lack of visible incentive to the respondent. We have grown past logical fallacies in virtual spaces I would guess because it is tribal, and outsiders do not get to participate in the closed games
Latest favorite Ad Hominem:
Friend says she hopes JD Vance finds out what happened to Omar's 30 million.
Brother says,JD Vance is a walking piece of shit.
fantastic
The most common one I run into is the NAWALT argument (not all women are like that). It is usually, though not exclusively, employed by female debaters. It consists of refuting a statistical argument or generalization by producing a single contrary instance, and triumphantly assuming victory. One contrary does not disprove a generalization. “Most East Indians have brown eyes”. “False! I once met a man born in Bombay who had blue eyes!”
yeah, a lot of people like that …. it’s a commonly used argument regarding military service ….. just because 1 in 100 women can meet the physical standards of the infantry does not mean that women should be in the infantry
False equivalency first. Followed immediately by Ad Hominem. Trump is literally Hitler, and you’re a racist.
anytime current Presidency comes up, false equivalency jumps right to the top, for sure
I am working on something that seems pretty impossible. Almost the entire online discourse I receive mimics a denial of service attack, basically if discovery or conversation’s a service they use tactics to deny service which include building firewalls to keep from experiencing enthusiasm or embarrassment. It makes sense that they protect their status and position inside the network, and most likely my error is in approach and the lack of visible incentive to the respondent. We have grown past logical fallacies in virtual spaces I would guess because it is tribal, and outsiders do not get to participate in the closed games