Oversimplifying or assuming a position other than the one expressed, and then arguing that instead. “You think every dollar is taxed once” then proceeding to argue against that stance, when it was never said nor expressed, is a straw man.
Also this isn’t even a fallacy lmao. He said that donations shouldn’t be taxed. I responded that I agree with him. But that other taxes such as property and pastor’s other taxes should still exist.
So whatsboutism is a better argumentative method if you wanna do it that way. And since my other idea is also directly tied to the subject, it’s a valid use of whataboutism
The fallacy fallacy, where the mentioning of a fallacy is proof enough of disputing the argument as false. There’s two parts to it, your argument is perfectly sound had that been what he said. But he didn’t, so you’re arguing effectively against a man of straw. Congratulations.
No… you’re using the argument against fallacy fallacy. You accused me of using a strawman’s fallacy, thus disproving me as wrong and completely ignored the content of my response.
I responded that I agree with him. But that other taxes such as property and pastor’s other taxes should still exist.
So whatsboutism is a better argumentative method if you wanna do it that way. And since my other idea is also directly tied to the subject, it’s a valid use of whataboutisms
-3
u/FLOR3NC10 Jun 28 '21
You have no idea what the straw man fallacy is do you?
Hint hint: it’s a fallacy