no-limits fallacy seems to be the most common one used these days.
LOGICAL FALLACIES[]
In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument. {C Using fallacies does not necessarily mean that the user has a wrong answer for a thread but rather he has a wrong argument in supporting his answer.
There are many different types of fallacies in logic. The following are the fallacies found in battle threads:
1. Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization
A generalization which disregards exceptions.
Ex. In battle, the stronger character wins. Kalifa is stronger than Nami, therefore Kalifa will win against Nami.
Prob. The argument fails to take into account that Nami can use other means to win besides strength such as outsmarting her opponent.
{C 2. Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization
An argument made by making a special case into a general rule.
Ex. Batman beat Superman. Batman is only human, therefore all humans can beat Superman.
Prob. The argument fails to take into account that Batman had prior special preparation in order to beat Superman.
{C 3. Irrelevant Conclusion
An argument made that diverts attention from the facts being debated rather than addressing it directly.
Ex. A battle between Itachi Uchiha and Ichigo Kurosaki will result in an Itachi win because my friends all agree that Itachi is the winner.
Prob. The argument fails to consider that his friends maybe wrong.
{C 4. Affirming the Consequent
An argument that makes a conclusion from premises that do not support said conclusion. It basically states that since the conclusion is true then the premise must be true also.
Ex. If Nami can beat Luffy and Luffy can beat Crocodile, then Nami can beat Crocodile.
Prob. The argument fails to consider that Luffy lets himself get beaten by Nami.
{C 5. Denying the Antecedent
An opposite of affirming the consequent. It’s an argument that states if the premise is false then the conclusion must also be false.
Ex. If Flash is FTL then he wouldn’t get hit by Batman. Flash got hit by Batman, therefore he is not FTL.
Prob. The argument ignores the fact that Flash does not move FTL all the time.
{C 6. Fallacy of False Cause
An argument that assumes one thing is the cause of another. Also known as Non sequitur.
Ex. Luffy has evaded lasers, therefore Luffy is FTL.
Prob. The argument fails to consider that Luffy could have anticipated the incoming laser or that the laser is not FTL.
{C 7. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundiam)
An argument that assumes something must be true because an expert or authority figure says it is.
Ex. Goku beats superman, the Mods said so.
Prob. The argument fails to consider that the Mods maybe biased or incorrect.
8. Fallacy of Many Questions
Also known as loaded question. It is a question that presupposes the answer, so an affirmative or negative answer would benefit the argument of the asker.
Ex. Are you still using that dumb argument?
Prob. If the person says yes, then he admits that he is using a dumb argument. If he answers no, he admits that the argument that he used was dumb.
9. Straw Man
It is an argument wherein a debater misrepresents the opponent's statement.
Ex. Debater A: Galactus is powerful. There is no way he can be beaten by any of the HST verse.
Debater B: Galactus was beaten by the Fantastic four, who are mere humans with limited powers, therefore
you are wrong.
Prob. Person A's statement could have been an objective statement but Person B, misrepresents "powerful" to being unbeatable, to make Person A's statement seem false.
10. Appeal to Popularity (Argumentum Ad Populum)
An argument that assumes the validity of a statement because it is held true by a majority.
Ex. Itachi wins against Eva, just look at the votes in the poll.
Prob. The argument fails to consider that the participants in the poll could have been biased.
11. Argumentum Ad Hominem
An invalid argument that attacks the person and not the point. It is when a debater insults his opponent instead of rebutting the argument made.
Ex. Itachi will still win and you're wrong because you have a brain of a retard.
Prob. The argument does not counter any statement of the opponent, just mocks the person of the opponent.
12. Burden of Proof
An argument wherein a debater demands proof from his opponent when the burden is really on his claim. In debates, it is always the positive claim that should provide proof.
Ex. Minato's FTG is faster than light, and you can't prove that it's not.
Prob. The debater is the one who made the positive claim, so he should be the one to provide proof of his statement, but he is burdening his opponent to disprove it.
13. Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum)
An invalid argument wherein the debating uses threatening statements against his opponent.
Ex. If you keep saying that stupid argument, I'll report you to the Mods for trolling.
Prob. The argument never rebutted the opponents case but merely tried to use a threat to win.
14. Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam)
An invalid argument wherein a statement is considered untrue because it lacks the evidence.
Ex. Superman is not a planet buster, I've never seen him bust planets in any comics or cartoon, so your claim that he is above a planet buster is not true.
Prob. The debater supposes that because he has never seen the evidence, the argument must then be invalid. It should be noted that pointing out the lack of evidence cannot be the means to invalidate a truthful claim, but merely the assumption of its truthfulness. The correct statement would have been, "Since we have yet to see the current Superman bust a planet, we cannot assume that he is already a planet buster."
15. Proof by Verbosity (Argumentum Verbosium)
An argument that seeks to win by a lengthy and massive explanation that has little or no connection to the points being debated upon.
Ex. Debater A: If we go by feats, Zoro will beat Kenshin because he is faster, stronger, tougher and his techs are far more destructive than Kenshin's.
Debater B: No. Kenshin is a master of Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu, and one of his techs is the Kuzu-Ryusen which can hit Zoro from nine vital points that will be fatal for him and not to mention Kenshin's Amakakeru Ryu No Hirameki which is the fastest tech of the Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu, which can suck Zoro towards Kenshin because it is a vacuum-based attack meaning he won't be able to dodge it. Plus Kenshin already defeated [[Seijuro Hiko who is the strongest swordsman there is, so there is no way Zoro will beat him.
Prob. All of the statements made by Debater B has no connection to the statement made by Debater A.
16. No-Limits Fallacy
An argument based on an incorrect supposition that a particular phenomenon can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed to not have any maximum threshold. This is commonly used by ignorant debaters who believe in hyperbolic statements.
Ex. Itachi can beat Whitebeard since Itachi can use Susanoo to shield against anything that Whitebeard can attack him with.
Prob. The argument assumes that Susanoo can take any kind of attack regardless of its power or quantity.
17. Fallacy fallacy (Argumentum Ad Logical)
An argument wherein the debater points out a logical fallacy used by the opponent and uses it as an excuse to suppose that his opponent's side is untrue.
Ex. Debater A: The Shichibukai pawns the Akatsuki, everyone else in the thread is saying so.
Debater B: That's appealing to popularity, which is a logical fallacy therefore, you are wrong.
Prob. The argument is correct in pointing out that the opponent has used a logical fallacy but it is incorrect in assuming that a logical fallacy automatically negates the veracity of a statement.
18. Fallacy of Maturity of Chances (Gambler's Fallacy)
An argument wherein the major percentage of past results are used to claim that the future results will be the same.
Ex. In all of the battle threads before, Luffy always wins against Naruto. Therefore, Luffy will still win against Naruto in this one.
Prob. Past results don't bear any significance on what might happen next.
19. Red Herring
An argument wherein a completely unrelated point is brought out to lure away from the real point being discussed.
Ex. Debater A: Madara can't use Bansho Tenin, since it was never shown on panel that he can.
Debater B: What are you talking about?!? Madara has the Rinnegan and the Sharingan plus he is better at it than Itachi & Sasuke Uchiha.
Prob. Bringing another claim that has nothing to do with the argument already presented only diverts the topic, it does not give any refutation.
20. Appeal to Motive
An argument wherein the debater challenges the opponent's argument by questioning his motives.
Ex. You only argue against Naruto because you like One Piece better.
Prob. The statement has nothing to do with the topic of the argument and is trying to discredit the opposing side without actually making valid points within the context of the topic.