fervent tiger
From believing teapots in space exist because nobody has disproven them yet, to asking for a raise or else you'll live in a cardboard box in a street somewhere and die of hypothermia, this collection serves to prove the human beauty of illogical fallacies.
Link to GDrive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0xiNTV0ywoc9KVRZk1Vge2wiNH-oDH4
Link to my card archive: https://discord.com/channels/646709318904840197/1232101302503346306
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies
Circular Reasoning
This is when the argument's justification is... the argument itself. It assumes the conclusion is true without providing any supporting statements or evidence.
Person 1: This book of botanical terms states that its source is from another book of botanical terms, but that book of botanical terms also states that the previous book is its source. So if I were to cross-reference both books, their information is correct because both books agree both are trusted sources? I'm confused.
Fractious Fallacies
Composition and Division Fallacy
These are related fallacies. The composition fallacy assumes that what is true for the parts must be true for the whole. The division fallacy states that what is true for the whole must be true for the parts.
Person 1: Right now, I'm using a meta card for my deck. This should mean my entire deck is meta!
Person 2: Oh come on man! Meta deck users have no life! You have no life then!
Fractious Fallacies
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof must always fall to the person making the claim. It is not the task of others to disprove your claim, and to say that if they fail to disprove your claim = your claim is true means nothing logically.
Person 1: There are definitely teapots floating in outer space right now.
Person 2: Nuh uh! That's impossible!
Person 1: Your argument sucks so that means THERE are teapots in space!
Fractious Fallacies
Texas Sharpshooter
Like a gunman painting targets on the wall after shooting bullets at it, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is when you cherrypick data clusters for similarities but ignore their differences or the randomness of the data clusters.
Person 1: According to these statistical observations, there seems to be a correlation between using Twitter and having Alzheimer's. Interesting.
Person 2: ...none of the points touch the line you made on your scatter plot graph.
Fractious Fallacies
Red Herring
Oh look, it's a fish
Fractious Fallacies
Strawman
If the argument's too hard, make an easier version of the argument and base off it! It's that simple.
Person 2: Man, it's getting hotter.. they should prioritize planting trees on sidewalks so the road doesn't get as hot.
Person 1: Oh really? So you think that our city should prioritize their money on plants and leaves littering our sidewalks instead of homeless shelters and food banks? You think homeless people don't exist so your "trees" can "grow" on the sidewalk, huh?
Person 2: what
Fractious Fallacies
Special Pleading
This fallacy happens when the argument has some special case that invalidates most if not all counterarguments against it. Basically, the argument is exempt from these without any justification, but usually out of deliberate ignorance.
Person 1: Magnetism doesn't exist.
Person 2: But my fridge magnets attract each other...
Person 1: Nuh uh, fridge magnets only attract each other because they're not real magnets.
Person 2: But you just repeated the No Scotsman fallacy...
Person 1: Nuh uh, it's not an example of the No Scotsman fallacy because that fallacy doesn't exist.
Person 2: But-
Person 1: I'm gonna ignore you if you don't shut up.
Fractious Fallacies
Whataboutism
Similar to Tu Quoque, it's basically a counter-accusation of the original accusation without defending the latter. It's moreso diverting attention from the original to the other.
Person 1: I'm speaking out. [insert influencer] has gone off record to harass and doxx me and my family and I have called my lawyers for a restraining order.
Person 2: Interesting. Hey, look at this! 10 years ago, you harassed minorities! What a coincidence.
Fractious Fallacies
Hasty Generalization
The argument is based on insufficient evidence to describe the whole. The conclusion is always rushed and other variables aren't considered using this fallacy.
Person 1: Ugh, Twitter is so toxic!
Person 2: Dude, you just opened Twitter for the first time and have seen like 2 considerably toxic posts.
Person 1: Ugh, all of my friends don't agree with me!
Fractious Fallacies
Two Wrongs Make A Right
A wrong action is justified because others did it too.
Person 1: I saw many people walking on the park litter! Why am I the one penalized instead?!
Person 2: Maybe because the officers saw you instead of them?
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Circular Reasoning
Why reason when you can circle back to your argument in hand? Circular Reasoning circles back to itself as a logical fallacy, because as a logical fallacy, one must be logically dubious, and to be logically dubious is to be fallacious, and to be fallacious is to be logically dubious, and
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Whataboutism
An internet argument is never complete without a small dose of one million Whataboutisms comments that never address the point at hand. Whataboutism is when an issue or an argument is counteracted by raising a different argument not entirely related to the original argument at hand, usually done as an attempt to one up the arguer. You could be criticizing someone for letting leopards eat their faces, and someone will go "Oh yeah! What about this event where more people had their faces eaten off by leopards?! Didn't think of that, did you!" Strange times.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Burden of Proof
Get this: Avid is going to add my fallacious collection next season! What, you're doubting me? You don't have proof of Avid saying that they're not going to add this collection next season, so consider your argument undone!
What seems to be a fairly ok argument is actually a fallacy, or moreso something you have to look out for from misinformers, fake news peddlers, and clickbaiters. Burden of Proof essentially means that whoever makes a claim has a responsibility to give evidence to said claim, not the other way around. If someone says "I won 1 million dollars!", your point shouldn't be "umm, well, it's impossible for an individual to win 1 million dollars!", but rather it should be "where's the ticket?".
Another way of understanding this fallacy is that just because someone can't prove a point wrong, doesn't mean that the point is automatically true.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Hasty Generalization
I've seen a few Game Dev! players in this league, so surely all of the current league competitors are using Game Dev!, right?
That's Hasty Generalization for you, a fallacy that rushes for a conclusion despite insufficient evidence for a proper one. A good argument not only has good evidence, but also considers most if not all avenues that can disprove it.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Two Wrongs Make A Right
Sure, sure, when you were a new player, someone took advantage of it and exchanged their God Particle for your single Men in Black. Does that excuse you for sharking new players, though?
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy that pretty much means "if others can do it, then I can too". Or, it can also be interpreted as "Something bad happened before, so surely I can do said bad thing without problems." You can't really do a revenge plot of killing the one who killed someone you cared about, since in most contexts, murder is illegal.
zenith tangle
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Ad Lapidem
If your first thoughts after seeing this card are on the lines of "What the heck is this? That isn't even from Green! This is just absurd", then you might be accustomed to using the Ad Lapidem Fallacy, also known as Appeal to The Stone.
This fallacy was named in the 1700s after an arguement about immaterialism ,which is the theory that material objects don't actually exist. The conversation got pretty heated up and Samuel Johnson (one side of the arguement) kicked a large rock so hard that his foot rebounded and shouted "I REFUTE YOU THUS!" Although Johnson's arguement may have made sense, nowadays Arguementum Ad Lapidem just refers to calling the other side's arguement absurd and refusing to explain, Stone-kicking optional.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Special Pleading
All cards in #💡│card-ideas deserve to be added in the game eventually, but surely mine should be given priority because... I made those cards and they're clearly better! Even the skibidi toilet one!
Here we have a special example of a special fallacy we know as Special Pleading! It's when you make an exception to a general or universal rule, except said exception is completely unjustified. For example, if all the parties are obviously all variants of big carnivorous cats capable of eating your faces off, then supporting the Leopard party thinking they're the exception with no basis will not protect you from your face being eaten.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
False Dilemma
"In this world, it's kill or be killed." That line is so stupid, even a flower believes it! Of course, if you agree with me, you're the greatest person and also the most handsome/beautiful person in the world, and if you don't, you are stupid.
Encountered a False Dilemma fallacy? It's when you are presented and urged to choose between a few seemingly mutually exclusive options, when really, it's (mostly) not all that polarizing of an issue. It's used mainly as a means to manipulate individuals in arguments, especially political issues.
I mean, if someone on the internet says "If you support this piece of media, then you're not a good person!", then you'll understand that it's either you support the media or not, even though the word "support" has a whole set of nuances and meanings other than believing said media.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Ad Hominem
This card needs no introduction. You already know it. You're stupid if you don't. A drooling toddler knows more about this than you, and somehow for a decade or two you still don't know what Ad Hominem is? Pathetic. So pathetic. Stupidly pathetic even. What kind of person are you? Do you just exist to breathe with your mouth open and have dreamless sleep for the rest of your life? What is wrong with you? Who are you? Why?
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Strawman
If you don't agree that my cards should be added into the game, then you agree that I should die, which violates the rules in this server :). So you better agree!
The internet's favorite fallacy, the Strawman Fallacy may as well become an actual counterpoint because of how ridiculously popular this informal fallacy is used as a slam-dunk on all sorts of hot takes and opinions. Of course, it's pretty understandable as to why it is popular in the first place. The argument is too hard for your liking? Dumb it down and attack the dumber version instead! Like a man made of straw, this dumber version of the argument cannot retort on its own, lacks any evidence to keep it standing, and is overtly hyperbolic and overblown to the point of ridiculousness - surely a perfect argument to make fun of, even though the actual argument never actually says that. You know what they say, "if you like pancakes, then you hate waffles!"
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Ad Verecundiam
As a biology undergraduate with a minor in being a video game nerd, I can assure you that even though my expertise is the squishy insides of people, by proxy I also know everything from astrophysics to zymology. Trust me, I know a lot.
Well, maybe except this one. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) simply states that an argument is substantiated by an existing authority, which may or may not be an actual authority or expert of said argument. It comes in many forms: either the expert is an actual expert of the argument at hand but isn't necessarily correct; the expert is not the correct expert of the argument at hand, or; the arguer is not an expert of the argument at hand and should be dismissed (pretty much ad hominem if you ask me). We understand that experts aren't necessarily correct in any way, but that doesn't mean that we should dismiss experts in their fields entirely. Don't go Ad Verecundiam'ing in your Facebook posts Bob, you know your 5-minute research doesn't hold up to your opponent's 5 years of schooling.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Slippery Slope
If Avid doesn't add this collection in this game, oh, what would happen to me? First, I'll lose my sanity. Then, I'll be thrown into the streets. Then, I'll become a serial killer. Then, I'll be tried in court under manslaughter and plead guilty. Then, I'll be imprisoned for life! Therefore, if Avid doesn't add my collection, I'll be imprisoned for life because of a murder charge. Makes sense, right?
Ever get told by your parents that if you don't go to school every day, you'll eventually be too poor to live? The Slippery Slope fallacy states that if A happens, it'll reach a bunch of reactions starting from B, to C, to D, and eventually to Z. While it is possible that action A can lead to outcome Z, you'll soon find that the probability of such events happening is not realistically guaranteed, even if all outcomes have a 99% chance of happening (.99^25 = 77.78 chance of outcome Z happening). It is also worth noting that this fallacy assumes that the events leading to outcome Z does happen, which often is not always the case.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Middle Ground
Standing just right there in the center, the Middle Ground fallacy can be really sneaky at times. It refers to the fact that not all arguments can be solved by meeting in the middle, or compromising both arguments to please each side equally. A pretty common example is that if two sides believe that 1 +1 =2 or 1 +1 =3, the "truth" must be that 1 +1 = 2<x<3, which is most certainly not the case. Two arguments that posit themselves as true can't be solved by being partially true via meeting in the middle.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Composition and Division Fallacy
I make a lot of cards. This one in particular is good. Therefore, I make good cards. Card makers are cool and awesome people. I myself am a card maker, so it must mean that I'm also cool and awesome 😎.
You might be wondering, "aren't these two different fallacies?" And I would say, yeah... but like, come on, they serve a similar purpose. The Fallacy of Composition, for instance, assumes that what is true for the parts must be true for the whole. Like for example, Table Salt is made up of two elements, Sodium and Chlorine. Chlorine is deadly in its elemental form, so it must mean that table salt is deadly.
Meanwhile, the Fallacy of Division states that what is true for the whole must be true for the parts. For instance, a baseball team that did well this season must be composed of individual baseball players that all do well.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Tu Quoque
Wanna avoid criticism? Try Tu Quoque, your cure-all to every drama, controversy, and most importantly, constructive criticism. A special form of Ad Hominem, Tu Quoque worms its way into arguments and turn them into couples' therapy in the verge of collapse. Of course, Tu Quoque ( only works if your opponent also has done the same thing they're criticizing you. This point of deflection can be easily worked around by putting on a smug face and saying, "Projection, much?"
Understand that Tu Quoque doesn't actually contribute to the argument at hand, as just because you're a hypocrite, doesn't mean your argument is dismissible. A person with a smoking addiction saying that smoking is bad for you has the same merit as one who doesn't.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Ad Ignorantiam
You have no proof that avid will not add this collection into the game, so it must mean they will add this collection into this game! Gotcha!
Ignore this all you want, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (or Appeal to Ignorance) is something you should definitely take notice of. An argument with this in mind can be devilishly misleading: if something cannot be proven right, then it must be wrong, and vice versa. If you can't disprove that chickens come from outer space, then they must in fact have come from outer space.
Ad Ignorantiam Debuff:
From 6/130 to 6/75
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Post Hoc
When I play ppt lock, I win instantly in games! Therefore, PPT Lock gives you instant wins. I am a very smart person.
Does correlation imply causation? The Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy seems to agree! Since Y event followed X event, it must mean that X event is the cause of Y event. For example, if each time you open a computer, then another person dies in a different continent, you might be inclined to agree that opening computers kill people.
Of course, correlation does not imply causation. Just because two events are connected doesn't mean one event causes or is the result of the other.
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Texas Sharpshooter
Taking shots at your opponent may be hard if there's no target painted on their arguments, but you can still paint on the missed shots and call it your own successes! The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy swoops in on arguments that create conclusions on data without a set target, or a hypothesis, in mind, and will take anything that appears consistent and clustered and ignore data that doesn't support it. Data can appear highly clustered due to randomness, but that doesn't correlate to anything unless you incorporate other points of data.
For example, if 100 people die from eating peanuts every year, it must suggest that eating peanuts kills people, when in fact the data did not actually show that those people had peanut allergies.
fervent tiger
🐟 Fractious Fallacies (FISH!)
Red Herring
I'm here to distract you!
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Ad Populum
At least 7 people liked this post! It must mean that this post is good, I mean 7? 7 is a lot of people!
Putting the pitiful example aside, why not join the fun of understanding Argumentum Ad Populum, or the Appeal to the People? I'm sure that if a large group of people agree on one particular argument, then it must mean that argument is correct, no? I mean, when has the majority ever been wrong? When?
When?
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Appeal to Tradition
Back in my day, there weren't any of those dastardly Game Dev! and Monopaleo decks! It was just, BeoSol and Space Technology and Eight Immortals. Those were the good days, I tell you! Whippersnappers.
When something has existed for a good while, does its antiquity justify its existence? Appeal to Tradition seems to agree! The argument states that "If X has been done for a long time, then it must be true." This is unfortunately a really popular fallacy, especially in the Internet. You might recognize a lot of examples of arguments justified because "it has been practically tradition" or "it has always been the case". I'm not writing anything of course, it's up to you to think of those examples ;).
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Ad Baculum
Hey, hey! I don't wanna see any criticism about my cards, or I'll be very angry. You won't like me when I'm angry, bucko, so you better pipe down...
...unless you're pandering for Ad Baculum! Appealing to force, this here fallacy seems to think that if agreeing to something results in a consequence you don't like, then disagreeing must be the correct thing to do. This does not say that the consequence-causing argument is true or false, however - rather, it just discourages you from accepting it. Sure, you can threaten to punch people when they say 2 + 2 = 4, but that doesn't discredit it no matter how scary your threat is.
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Moving the Goalposts
See someone making a good counterpoint to your obviously well-constructed argument? Move the goalposts! If you said "Cats make bad pets" and someone replied, "No, they're low maintenance for people that are busy", the first thing to do is, funnily enough, consider the retort. After considering it, trash your first argument aside, then make a new argument that counters the counterpoint. In this case, you don't reply with another point on how cats are bad, but instead say "What I meant was, cats make bad pets if you're not a busy person."
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Non-Sequitur
The FitnessGram Pacer Test™ is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal bodeboop. A sing lap should be completed every time you hear this sound. ding Remember to run in a straight line and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark. Get ready!… Start. ding
Non-Sequitur fix
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Appeal to Emotion
PLEASEEEE PLEASE SUPPORT THIS POST
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Sunk Cost
Have you ever put so much effort into something that's so obviously failing, but you can't really leave it because you pretty much spent so much time in it that it feels so wasteful leaving? You may have come across the Sunk Cost fallacy, the fallacy that guilts you into continuing failing projects! Remember that quitting when it's needed and pouring your energy into better projects does not match with pouring more and more energy to a gaping hole ;).
fervent tiger
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Appeal to Nature
I'm sure belladonna and death caps make good healthy salads, after all, they're from nature! Appealing to Nature mainly targets synthetic or artificial items that we have made as technology progresses, from food to medicine. It comes from the assumption that factory-made items must be bad because they contain chemicals and unnatural stuff, while natural things are good because nature made them. People that make these arguments forget that everything is made of chemicals, and what you hear as "dihydrogen monoxide" is actually water.
Fractious Fallacies (NEW!)
Fallacy Fallacy
The FALLACY FALLACY!! If someone's argument contains a fallacy, then surely their argument must be false! If someone says "We should fund the department of education because you're dumb and stupid and probably has -500 IQ", then it must mean that we shouldn't fund the department of education anyways.
fervent tiger
steep abyss
<:I_Art:835161668664426567> **Fractious Fallacies** (NEW!)
*Fallacy Fallacy*
Th...
Great card