It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.
I rest my case.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the attack was staged by shape shifting aliens as a science experiment to see how we humans would react. The attack being staged by a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists comes in as a close second.
Your case is wrong.
“facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001,”
“Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate"
“facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001,”
“Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate"
Originally posted by theability
Ohh btw if you need direction on why your here on ATS, here is couple of great links that define what debate is, and argument, logic too!
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).
Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly
Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.)
to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.
Originally posted by theability
thanks for helping in my argument AGAIN!
It's a stretch because you use the word "facts" to validate your desired requirement that it include details about the WTC7 collapse.
There is no requirement for WTC7 to be mentioned. That's why it's not there.
It does say that. Then it immediately details very specific areas which must be investigated. The collapse of WTC7 is not listed. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend
Again, that's a major stretch and a pretty lame argument.
Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.
This guy thinks he can shoehorn in WTC7 based on the word "facts" in the preface. He considers this a "logical debate" but refuses to discuss the obvious fallacy when presented to him. This person is clearly incapable of critical thinking skills.
Agreed. But the fact that this guy believes he has a great point and has presented a "logical debate" on such a basis still makes me question his ability to think critically and objectively. This has to be up there with some of the worst of the 911 conspiracy arguments.
You are unquestionably the most confused individual I've ever seen. Using definitions of logical fallacy to commit another series of logical fallacies. Best of luck to you getting through life, sir.
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments...
First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener.
One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence.
In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.
Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.
In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.
Sorry, sir.
You are incapable of interpreting a simple preface statement as many have pointed out. Best of luck getting through life, sir.
Originally posted by theability
By establishing the foundation and premise the logical conclusion is: By law the Commission report must state the All the facts regarding 9/11 which includes mention WTC 7, plus state where and when, by who these facts should, and WILL be investigated by, outlining the days events logically,in order, by law leaving nothing omitted, thereby representing the contiditions setforeth by the fourth Paragraph of the Preface!
Originally posted by theability
Again we see your pattern!
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
I will only reply to you this once:
and I quote:
Your case is wrong.
Well as for the guidelines for and concerning logic argument and debate, defined and established by university; The thread I supplied here is sound.
I know that in any good debate, a logical argument must be clearly defined, which of course has nothing to do with ME.
Now this website ATS has nothing to do with me being wrong, it has to do with debate and logical argument, which I am done my best to define.