This channel's goal is to educate people about logical fallacies and provide examples of how to conduct a civil debate.
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.
This is basic.
If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance). These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".
This channel's goal is to educate people about logical fallacies and provide examples of how to conduct a civil debate.
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.
This is basic.
If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance). These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".
FAIR USE NOTICE
This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.
This channel's goal is to educate people about logical fallacies and provide examples of how to conduct a civil debate.
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.
This is basic.
If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance). These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".
FAIR USE NOTICE
This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.