What do you call a situation where person A made a bad argument, only to be countered by person B, making person B more valid. But in reality A was actually right but made bad arguments.
Is there a fallacy about this? Or is this just poor research on A's behalf?
So apparently this is not what a fallacy is. But is there a term for situation like this?
vyvid [#6]that’s not what a “fallacy” is. a fallacy refers to the argument itself, i.e. person A makes a fallacious argument. the fact that they’re “right” doesn’t mean there has to be a word to describe the situation
But what about person B?
Zerphyr1 [#8]buddy this is not what a fallacy is
Ok, I'll admit I just thought it would sound cool haha. I just want to know whether there is a term where situation like this happens
IonlywatchvcjXD [#9]Ok, I'll admit I just thought it would sound cool haha. I just want to know whether there is a term where situation like this happens
person A probably had fallacious arguments since ur saying their reasoning/premises are unsound
IonlywatchvcjXD [#7]But what about person B?
there’s a difference between an argument being valid and it being sound. validity is when an argument is correct assuming the premises are true and soundness is when an argument is correct and the premises are also true
usually in situations like the one you described, person A offers an invalid argument, which is where they’re fallacious. then, person B counters with a valid argument, and makes it look like they destroyed them. in reality, however, neither of them made a sound argument, which would be an argument with correct reasoning that also supports the “right” conclusion
vyvid [#12]there’s a difference between an argument being valid and it being sound. validity is when an argument is correct assuming the premises are true and soundness is when an argument is correct and the premises are also true
usually in situations like the one you described, person A offers an invalid argument, which is where they’re fallacious. then, person B counters with a valid argument, and makes it look like they destroyed them. in reality, however, neither of them made a sound argument, which would be an argument with correct reasoning that also supports the “right” conclusion
I see, thx for the answer man
Zerphyr1 [#11]person A probably had fallacious arguments since ur saying their reasoning/premises are unsound
Ok , thx for the inputs bro
IonlywatchvcjXD [#14]Ok , thx for the inputs bro
just doing a quick google search there doesnt seem to be any phrase or name for the situation u are describing but I would call it a "Non sequitur with a correct result." Non sequitur just means that the conclusion doesnt logically follow from the previous argument/premises.
Zerphyr1 [#15]just doing a quick google search there doesnt seem to be any phrase or name for the situation u are describing but I would call it a "Non sequitur with a correct result." Non sequitur just means that the conclusion doesnt logically follow from the previous argument/premises.
I see, I really should learn more about fallacies or those kinds of things
tserc [#16]iirc a fallcy is a faulty reasoning/misleading argument
I see, thx for pointing that out
seere [#19]the reason why person B sounds more "valid" (to most people) despite not being right is probably due to confirmation bias
I see
efweema [#23]why so?
I believed this region can be a top region in the long run, provided if they played they played their cards correctly, and they have plenty of cards to play imo
Discord