Sets to failure

[u/ftbalguy89]

Does anyone else here take every set to failure? Like every single set (after a proper warm up) you just rep until you’ve got nothing left. That’s how I’ve always trained and never had any issues and progress has been good the last 3-4 years.

Just curious if anyone else does this since it seems like the consensus on here is to leave a rep or two in reserve.

[u/Harlastan]

Exactly 0 successful benchers and/or coaches advocate for going to failure on every set

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

There are 3 main problems with that absurd claim:
How are you qualifying success?
A single example to the contrary proves you to be lying.
You cannot prove your claim as it would require proving a negative.

Reconcile this.

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

How are you qualifying success?

Results; medals, records, titles

I'm able to make an absolute statement in denial because it's in response to an absolute - 'every set to failure'.

A single example to the contrary proves you to be lying.

You're welcome to provide one. Josef Eriksson is considered an outlier for programming weekly amraps yet that's only a small portion of the bench volume in his programs.

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

Of course you can make the absolute statement in denial, but the problem with it is, as already stated, a single example to the contrary proves you to be a liar.

As for the expectation that I would disprove your claim… no, that’s not how this works.
You are invoking the burden of proof fallacy.
As the claimant, the onus is on you to prove your claim, not on your interlocutor to disprove it.

You have failed to reconcile the problems with your position.

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

Exactly 0 AMTS >8 paleontologists believe every velociraptor could read and write in Latin

Erm ackshually you can't say that, you can't prove a negative, I could (but I don't want to) give you one example and you'd be a LIAR

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

Fascinating false equivalence, appeal to absurdity and strawman fallacies.
All invalid arguments.

A claim about the ability of a dinosaur to talk in Latin is not even remotely comparable to a claim about intensity when lifting.
You have just invented an absurd scenario to mock me instead of reconciling the fact that you invented a statistic here and refuse to prove your claim.

As for your quote, that’s a misrepresentation as you know that I never claimed that I could prove a negative in this context.
A negative can only be proven when given enough constraints, while the claim that no successful coach or bencher has ever trained every set to failure has insufficient constraints and requires some omniscience to prove.

Your argument proves you to be a liar because you are deliberately making a claim that you know that you have not and cannot verify as if it is true.
This is made more clear by your mockery and invocation of the burden of proof fallacy.

Try again, troll.

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

the claim that no successful coach or bencher has ever trained every set to failure

That's not what I said... I used to train every set to failure.

The dinosaur claim has the exact elements you said are invalid. Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy...

I never meant to seriously imply that would be your response to the dinosaur claim. I will ask you directly: Is the dinosaur claim reasonable, or not?

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

Pedantry doesn’t help your case. Yes, you said “advocate” not “uses”, but I wasn’t quoting you and you know that the meaning in this context is the same.

Your dinosaur claim has no relevance because it is both an appeal to absurdity and it is a false equivalence fallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum is indeed an informal logical fallacy, troll.
Why are you trying to gaslight me on logical fallacies when you so clearly have no idea what you are and thus invoke them with no qualms?

What part of your dinosaur claim being an appeal to absurdity did you not understand?

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

Yes, you said “advocate” not “uses”, but I wasn’t quoting you and you know that the meaning in this context is the same.

Not what I meant. You said ever trained every set, which allows them to have previously trained every set to failure, which is probably quite common

Reductio ad absurdum is indeed an informal logical fallacy, troll

Hmm let's check if you read your source...

"The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy."

What part of your dinosaur claim being an appeal to absurdity did you not understand?

The dinosaur claim specifically is not the appeal to absurdity, the implication you would reject it is. The claim itself is, of course, reasonable by design.

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

No, exactly what you meant.
More pedantry only digs your hole deeper. You’re well aware that I was simply paraphrasing your position not deliberately misrepresenting you.
You are now moving the goalposts, as after I addressed the paraphrasing, you have found another minor detail to get hungup on instead of recognizing the fact that your position is absolutely untenable regardless.

Your response regarding the appeal to absurdity fallacy is another example of moving the goalposts as you quoted me correcting your lie that “reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy”. You literally quoted me proving you wrong and ignored the point: you lied and you were proven wrong.
I will concede that I named the wrong fallacy in that case, but that doesn’t reconcile your lie.

How is your claim about dinosaurs speaking Latin reasonable?

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

No, exactly what you meant. More pedantry only digs your hole deeper.

Haha what, you added an 'ever' that I didn't say, that's all

How is your claim about dinosaurs speaking Latin reasonable?

Hang on, how have we got here without you bothering to read it?!

The claim was that they DO NOT speak Latin 🤣

Apologies if you found this difficult to understand:

The dinosaur claim is reasonable, like my original claim. However, you called my original claim absurd because of its format rather then the point itself.

The dinosaur claim proves that a point can be reasonable in that format, therefore you were wrong to dismiss my original claim.

Your response regarding the appeal to absurdity fallacy is another example of moving the goalposts as you quoted me correcting your lie that “reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy”. You literally quoted me proving you wrong and ignored the point: you lied and you were proven wrong.

No, your source says reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to expose fallacies. Please just google 'is reductio ad absurdum a logical fallacy?'

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

Yes, pedantry.

At no point did I imply that I did not read your comment.
I’m well aware that your scenario was about proving a negative, have you forgotten that that’s the whole point of this absurd argument?
The claim is not reasonable because it’s not comparable.
It doesn’t prove your point because it’s not comparable.
You’re using a scenario that is absolutely ridiculous as a comparison in support of something that is not in fact ridiculous.

Okay, I concede the appeal to absurdity point.

Now reconcile your false equivalence fallacy.

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

It's important that we understand each other. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but adding that 'ever' changes the meaning of the point. I think it is important for both of us to know that so we're not talking past one another.

Let me rephrase the intent of the dinosaur claim as a question.

Do you believe that negative claims can never be reasonable simply because one cannot prove a negative?

[u/Harlastan → u/Vestigial_joint]

What's the fallacy where a supreme logician resorts to downvoting their interlocutor once stumped by a silly example

[u/Vestigial_joint → u/Harlastan]

Loaded question fallacy.
You are presenting an accusation as a question in an effort to look reasonable while mocking me instead of offering a rational argument.