Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Tu quoque [a] is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical.
From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.
The tu quoque defense (Latin for 'you too') asserts that the authority trying a defendant has committed the same crimes of which they are accused. [1] [2] It is related to the legal principle of clean hands, [3] reprisal, [4] and "an eye for an eye". [5]
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Boudry coined the term fallacy fork. [27] For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork), or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork). [27]
Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a different perception of oneself relative to others. [34] The following are forms of egocentric bias: Bias blind spot , the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.
Gore had been battling criticisms that he was too stiff during public appearances, which may have explained how hard he leaned in. Regardless, the smooch was remembered more than Gore's speech.
Fallacies of definition are the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an analogy with an informal fallacy. [1] Definitions may fail to have merit, because they are overly broad, [2] [3] [4] overly narrow, [3] [4] or incomprehensible; [4] or they use obscure or ambiguous language, [2] contain mutually exclusive parts, [3] or (perhaps most ...