/r/badfallacy
A place for people who think they know more about logical fallacies than the average person to prove that this is the case. With links! And high-handed mockery!
A place for all True Scottish Strawredditors to laugh at reddit's collective inability to correctly identify fallacies.
Badcademics Association Member
Links
An explanation of why your bad ad hominem is bad.
Similar subs:
Guidelines:
Don't vote or comment in linked threads.
In light of Guideline NaN, use np.reddit.com when citing posts on reddit.
The reason for both the above is that when redditors get lots of downvotes, they often delete their posts and/or accounts, and this makes it more difficult for the rest of us to laugh at them.
Of course, no true redditor would indulge in such behaviour.
Additionally, it's probably best not to link to discussions you're currently involved in; it just looks petty. If someone wrongly accuses you of committing a fallacy, gently correct them and try and move back to the actual meat of the argument. If they persist in their ignorance, then you can submit it here.
Please don't show up here and start arguing, especially if you're going to start committing logical fallacies. Mod policy is to indiscriminately ban people who do so, or, as a warning, to give them embarrassing tags.
These guidelines may become actual rules in the event that we get enough traffic to try and sort the good stuff from the bad, instead of cravenly accepting any and all comers with approval and upvotes, which is current mod policy.
Other
Some advice about formatting links from /u/aedeos:
"appending the link with ?context=x, wherein x is the number of comments back you want to go from the one that you really want to show off helps a ton for this sort of thing."
/r/badfallacy
I just found this subreddit so this should be interesting!
Anyways, I've always had in interest in Logical Fallacies because I found them interesting and know that they're used ALL THE TIME, especially in places in Facebook, and in politics.
Another reason I'm asking this is because my friend and I are having an argument about how the iPhone X sucks horribly (I'll admit that I am an Android "fanboy" but at least I can defend that). His argument against Android is that Samsung has to team up with Epic Games to sell the Fortnite skin on their Note 8 (maybe 9?) because the phone is horrible. And then he claims that my only argument is that people hardly buy the phone for the Fortnite skin and that people don't do much with it, because Fortnite is so niche.
This whole situation doesn't seem right with me. He keeps coming back to the Fortnite scenario which kind of makes me think he's using a Strawman. Does anyone here have any enlightening words?
*I'm not asking for help with the argument, but I just want to see if he's use something bs*
Thank you! :)
Some would say ad hominem, but on balance I would have to say correlation=/= causation. Whenever something bad is associated with something reddit likes, it's correlation does not imply causation, even when that is controlled for. Whereas a study of two teenagers and a donkey for teen stoner magazine is never shouted down with "correlation is not causation ackychyually".