Quote:
eric76 is to logic as
A. Fauci is to baseball
B. Biden is to continence
C. Bill Clinton is to fidelity
D. All of the above
But to Eric's defense here, it seems to have worked as no one has actually deconstructed his statement. Instead, they went all F16 and started attacking him personally. The Ad Hominem fallacy is not a proper defense in any walk of life.
Most debate moderators would have awarded him a few points and knocked down the score of team F16 here.
Tips for actually refuting his text for the future
https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903Quote:
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin
- "[A] reductio ad absurdum argument tries to show that one claim, X, is false because it implies another claim Y, that is absurd. To evaluate such an argument, the following questions should be asked:
1. Is Y really absurd?
2. Does X really imply Y?
3. Can X be modified in some minor way so that it no longer implies Y? If either of the first two questions is answered in the negative, then the reductio fails; if the third question receives an affirmative answer, then the reductio is shallow. Otherwise, the reductio ad absurdum argument is both successful and deep."
(Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, 8th ed. Wadsworth, 2010)
For instance, you could have pointed out that his introduction of the concept of murder changed the context completely and introduced a whole other debate not relevant to what is specifically being discussed here.
You could have pointed out subsequently that the larger world and our legal system does indeed put different economic values on life based on human capital, expected lifespan, and other factors.
You could have pointed out that our legal system actually does have different gradients of murder with different implications for sentencing.
But you just called him stupid.