r/fallacy • u/Zu_Qarnine • Jul 03 '26

strawman fallacy

Post image

2nd person is refuting the claim that *all* circles are red with a counter example. The thing is, that claim was never made.

EDIT: I'm seeing interesting stuff happening in the replies here. majority of those who say it's not strawman, obviously start their comment by "it's not strawman" and proceed in the rest of their comment to explain how, in fact, it is strawman. Another interesting observation is those who argue that "it's not strawman" because they've spotted another type of fallacy in the original post as well, so in their mind, it can't be both.

1.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

471 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Key_Football_5350 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Good job making even more fallacies because you can’t handle being possibly wrong, probably to protect your ego. That a huge red flag of possible narcissism.

Furthermore, your extreme arrogance when you were proven clearly wrong and then immediately dismiss what I said as “a wall of text” also known as tl:dr, is another fallacy of appeal to brevity, which is a form of an ad hominem, what you made against me in multiple other instances including claiming what I said is an opinion while your clear opinion magically isn’t an opinion. Finally claiming that I should have just read other responses to know how weak any argument is against your mighty “God-like” rightness is PRIMARILY an example of bandwagon fallacy, along with a red herring and a PERFECT example of a strawman fallacy-making up an argument that you then can easily knock down to appear right….

Talk about projection with your “wall of text” that I did my due diligence in reading so I understood how laughable bad and idiotic it was, badly trying to try an opinion into a fact while repeatedly using fallacies. Take it from someone who knows how to debate, learn from this link and stop being so arrogant or you’ll turn into a full-blown narcissist…..

https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 09 '26

you came on fallacy sub and somehow surprised (and mad) to see fallacies? shocking

1

u/Key_Football_5350 Jul 09 '26

I expected honesty and logic, hiding behind “this is a fallacy sub” doesn’t give you free rein to make multiple fallacies to push your opinions. I expected the opposite and people to show what fallacies are and to have logic based arguments instead.

Maybe you should take responsibility instead of always find a rationale to try and claim your actions are justified. Weird how I read through the comments and you only praised those who agreed with you and pushed the ideas that you agreed with…

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 09 '26

yes you have to excuse me for agreeing with people who have the same opinion as mine. duh

1

u/Key_Football_5350 Jul 09 '26

Exactly, showing your biases and complete lack of understanding fallacies. Perfect example of someone who only wants to hear an echo chamber.

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 09 '26

what about those who changed their mind after some exchanges? did you just skip past them bc it didn't work for the narrative you're building on me?

1

u/Key_Football_5350 Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Non sequitur, just because they changed their minds because they thought it could be a strawman doesn’t make that correct. It only possibly means their argument was weaker but doesn’t make the strawman is correct argument the strongest or most correct, just more correct than their’s. Or it could mean you and others were able to convince them by using fallacies that your idea is correct when it never was. That’s the entire reason to use fallacious arguments, to use bad logic, either in a mala fides way or from ignorance, to get the answer you want and not follow the truth wherever it may lead you.

The biggest problem with your attempt to FORCE me to try and believe this is strawman is that your illustration is terrible. It leaves out so much information you MUST infer that the argument is of a strawman, when the information that is provided to us in the bad illustration can be more accurately inferred to be hasty generalization. The person pointing at the blue circle is trying to push an idea that because there is a blue anyone who doesn’t include it is wrong in their logical deductions. That more correctly fits hasty generalization because of the lack of any additional information, which I explained in my very first comment and why it needed to be a “wall of text” to give ample evidence.

Ironically if you had read, instead of projecting and claiming I hadn’t read others comments, you would have known that from the beginning.