Comments by "Cupid Stunt" (@Cupid-Stunt) on "David Asman fact-checks Biden's claims on oil prices: It's 'just incorrect'" video.

  1. 5
  2. 5
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 3
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34.  @its-butters58  troll 1. a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post: "one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized" 2. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them: "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you" Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl Modus tollens, a logical proof Proof of impossibility, mathematics Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
    1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68.  @tammyvanwinkle8870  Run away LOSER! Straw Man or Ad Hominem? Straw Man A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects. Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top. -------------------------- Ad hominem Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the character, motive etc. of the person(s) associated with the argument Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. -----------------------------
    1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91.  @tammyvanwinkle8870  troll 1. a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post: "one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized" 2. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them: "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you" Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl Modus tollens, a logical proof Proof of impossibility, mathematics Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
    1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1