text
stringlengths 46
1.4k
| labels
listlengths 1
6
| comments
listlengths 0
6
| sentences_with_labels
stringlengths 75
1.75k
| id
int64 0
199
| old_labels
listlengths 0
0
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TITLE: Endless Ledge Skip Campaign for Alts POST: Reading everyone's comments has made me change my opinion on having an adventure mode like thing in PoE. I keep seeing if an adventure mode needs to exist then why not just start a char at 68. then a couple months after that we'll see post about how people want to start at 90 just so they can kill bosses. Then a few months later we'll see people asking for a"creative" mode so they can have access to all items in the game so they don't have to farm, and i dont think that sets a good example as a community for a game that we all love.
|
[
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
155,
588
]
}
] |
[
"Slippery slope: P1 = poster, A = why not just start a char at 68, B = then a couple months after that we'll see post about how people want to start at 90 just so they can kill bosses, C = Then a few months later we'll see people asking for a\"creative\" mode so they can have access to all items in the game, D= so they don't have to farm",
"Usage of a slippery slope for removing adventure modes."
] |
{"TITLE: Endless Ledge Skip Campaign for Alts POST: Reading everyone's comments has made me change my opinion on having an adventure mode like thing in PoE.": [["nothing"]], "I keep seeing if an adventure mode needs to exist then why not just start a char at 68.": [["slippery slope"]], "then a couple months after that we'll see post about how people want to start at 90 just so they can kill bosses.": [["slippery slope"]], "Then a few months later we'll see people asking for a\"creative\" mode so they can have access to all items in the game so they don't have to farm, and i dont think that sets a good example as a community for a game that we all love.": [["slippery slope"]]}
| 0
|
[] |
Two of my best friends are really introverted, shy people, and they both have cats. That leads to me believe that most cat lovers are really shy.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
84,
145
]
}
] |
[
"Based on two people only, you can't draw general conclusions.",
"Hasty generalization: S=2 introverted friends, P=introverted people, C=are cat lovers"
] |
{"Two of my best friends are really introverted, shy people, and they both have cats.": [["nothing"]], "That leads to me believe that most cat lovers are really shy.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 1
|
[] |
TITLE: There is a difference between a'smurf' and an'alt'. Please learn it and stop using them interchangeably. POST: Someone once told me they have an"alt" cause their main account was too high of rank to play with their friends. It's exactly the same as smurfing.
|
[
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
118,
265
]
}
] |
[
"False Analogy: X: Having an alt , Y: smurfing, P: Both involve having a secondary account.",
"We removed the hasty gen",
"the text may involve a \"False Equivalence\" fallacy. This is when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. In your example, the person is equating having an 'alt' account to play with friends of a lower rank with 'smurfing'. While both involve using a secondary account, the motivations and consequences may be different, so it's not necessarily accurate or fair to say they are \"exactly the same\".\n\nThis could be seen as a folse analogy too."
] |
{"TITLE: There is a difference between a'smurf' and an'alt'.": [["nothing"]], "Please learn it and stop using them interchangeably.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Someone once told me they have an\"alt\" cause their main account was too high of rank to play with their friends.": [["false analogy"]], "It's exactly the same as smurfing.": [["false analogy"]]}
| 2
|
[] |
TITLE: Discussion Thread (Part 3): 2020 Presidential Race Democratic Debates - Post Debate | Night 2 POST: Joe Biden will lose to Trump if he is the nominee. The Democratic party clearly has not learned the right lesson from Hillary Clinton's miserable failure. NOBODY WANTS ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS ANYMORE. NOBODY LIKES THE STATUS QUO. Like Jesus Christ you think they would learn. POST: The status quo in America is that its the best its ever been. We live in one of the best societies in the best times that humans have ever experienced.
|
[
{
"label": "guilt by association",
"location": [
107,
261
]
},
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
107,
338
]
},
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
158,
338
]
},
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
},
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
391,
542
]
}
] |
[
"Circular reasoning: X = The status quo in America is that its the best its ever been. X= We live in one of the best societies in the best times that humans have ever experienced.",
"Stop the false causality to measurable failure",
"ad populum: X = everybody hate establishment",
"causal oversimplification: X = Biden is status quo and associated with Hilary Clinton, Y = Biden will loose, A = Biden could loose for many other reasons like is age, is politics...",
"false causality: A = Biden is associated with the establishment wich is a bad thing, B = Hence he will loose.",
"guilt by association: P1 = Biden, Y = P1 will succeed, P2 = Hilary Clinton, A = P2 is a miseable failure."
] |
{"TITLE: Discussion Thread (Part 3): 2020 Presidential Race Democratic Debates - Post Debate | Night 2 POST:": [["nothing"]], "Joe Biden will lose to Trump if he is the nominee.": [["guilt by association"], ["causal oversimplification"]], "The Democratic party clearly has not learned the right lesson from Hillary Clinton's miserable failure.": [["guilt by association"], ["causal oversimplification"], ["nothing", "ad populum"]], "NOBODY WANTS ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS ANYMORE.": [["causal oversimplification"], ["nothing", "ad populum"]], "NOBODY LIKES THE STATUS QUO.": [["causal oversimplification"], ["nothing", "ad populum"]], "Like Jesus Christ you think they would learn.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "The status quo in America is that its the best its ever been.": [["circular reasoning"]], "We live in one of the best societies in the best times that humans have ever experienced.": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 3
|
[] |
America is the best place to live, because it's better than any other country.
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
78
]
}
] |
[
"Circular reasoning: X=America is the best place to live, Y=America is better than other place to live",
"The best place hence it's better"
] |
{"America is the best place to live, because it's better than any other country.": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 4
|
[] |
Let us move now to the future. It is not enough to stand on this record because we are dealing with the most ruthless, fanatical... leaders that the world has ever seen. That is why I say that in this period of the sixties, America must move forward in every area.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
0,
169
]
},
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
170,
264
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to Fear: X: We are dealing with fanatical leaders, Y: Standing is not enough.",
"Causal Oversimplification: X: Fear of collpasing, Y: America has to move forward.",
"appeal to fear: If we stand we will fail because of the ruthless actual environment.",
"causal oversimplification: they are many reasons to move forward, not only the fear of collapsing."
] |
{"Let us move now to the future.": [["appeal to fear"]], "It is not enough to stand on this record because we are dealing with the most ruthless, fanatical...": [["appeal to fear"]], "leaders that the world has ever seen.": [["appeal to fear"]], "That is why I say that in this period of the sixties, America must move forward in every area.": [["causal oversimplification"]]}
| 5
|
[] |
Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.
|
[
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
0,
207
]
},
{
"label": "guilt by association",
"location": [
0,
207
]
}
] |
[
"ad hominem: P1 = Delores, Y= equal pay for equal wor, A = P1 is called an extremist.",
"guilt by association: P1 = delores, Y= equal pay for equal work, P2 = feminist groups, A = P2 are extreme"
] |
{"Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work.": [["guilt by association", "ad hominem"]], "This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support.": [["guilt by association", "ad hominem"]], "Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.": [["guilt by association", "ad hominem"]]}
| 6
|
[] |
"Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy toothpaste. Therefore, it must be great."
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to (false) authority",
"location": [
0,
91
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to (false) authority: Person 1=4 out of 5 dentist, X=recommend that toothpaste",
"Because dentists haven't done any clinical trials.",
"is it an ad populum, because there is a majority of dentists who recommend the toothpaste ?"
] |
{"\"Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy toothpaste.": [["appeal to (false) authority"]], "Therefore, it must be great.\"": [["appeal to (false) authority"]]}
| 7
|
[] |
TITLE: Gatineau police officer tests positive, but masks still not mandatory at checkpoints POST: Guess what? police need to interact with people at close quarters. they often need to touch or grapple. The masks do little. Cool it. Once they wear masks your anxiety will force you to demand the next step. biohazard suits? get real.
|
[
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
232,
332
]
}
] |
[
"Slippery Slope: A: Wearing masks, B: Increase anxiety, C: Wearing more protective measures like biohazard suits.",
"classic slippery slope"
] |
{"TITLE: Gatineau police officer tests positive, but masks still not mandatory at checkpoints POST: Guess what?": [["nothing"]], "police need to interact with people at close quarters.": [["nothing"]], "they often need to touch or grapple.": [["nothing"]], "The masks do little.": [["nothing"]], "Cool it.": [["nothing"]], "Once they wear masks your anxiety will force you to demand the next step.": [["slippery slope"]], "biohazard suits?": [["slippery slope"]], "get real.": [["slippery slope"]]}
| 8
|
[] |
The last Democrat winner of the New Hampshire primary won the general election. This year, the winner of the New Hampshire primary will win the general election.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
0,
161
]
},
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
161
]
}
] |
[
"causal oversimplification: X = winning the primary election, Y = can create a wining movement, A = politics, B = personality we are facing, etc.",
"false causality: A = winning primary, B = winning the general election"
] |
{"The last Democrat winner of the New Hampshire primary won the general election.": [["false causality", "causal oversimplification"]], "This year, the winner of the New Hampshire primary will win the general election.": [["false causality", "causal oversimplification"]]}
| 9
|
[] |
Men score better on math than women do. Jerry is a man. Therefore, Jerry is better at math than Sylvia, who is a woman.
|
[
{
"label": "fallacy of division",
"location": [
0,
119
]
}
] |
[
"Fallacy of division: A=Jerry/Sylvia, B=Average of men/women, X=Better at math/Worse at math",
"Switch from false causality to hasty generalization since the argument incorrectly assumes that because men, on average, score better on math than women, this must apply to all individual men and women.",
"The hasty gen is put in the other way making it look like an inductive fallacy (which is broader)"
] |
{"Men score better on math than women do.": [["fallacy of division"]], "Jerry is a man.": [["fallacy of division"]], "Therefore, Jerry is better at math than Sylvia, who is a woman.": [["fallacy of division"]]}
| 10
|
[] |
TITLE: Sign petition for Persona 5 pc and switch ports POST: So much important stuff in the world that needs political activism. Makes a petition to portbeg P5 onto PC and Switch.
|
[
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
61,
179
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
61,
179
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to Ridicule: P1: Claims that we have to sign a petition for Persona 5 PC and switch ports\nP2: use sarcasm by saying that there is so much important stuff in the world that needs political activism, such as \"\"Makes a petition to P5 to port beg onto PC and Switch.\"",
"Appeal to Worse Problem: S: Sign Petition for Persona 5 PC and switch ports, B: So much important stuff in the world needs political activism.",
"OR (appeal to worse problems AND appeal to ridicule) because it could be a sarcasm",
"switch from Appeal to worse problem to straw man because he/she doesn't use the important stuff to empeach the petition but to stress its importance while it is not relevant for the actual petition."
] |
{"TITLE: Sign petition for Persona 5 pc and switch ports POST:": [["nothing"]], "So much important stuff in the world that needs political activism.": [["appeal to worse problems", "appeal to ridicule"]], "Makes a petition to portbeg P5 onto PC and Switch.": [["appeal to worse problems", "appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 11
|
[] |
Carbon dioxide hurts nobody' s health. It' s good for plants. Climate change need not endanger anyone.
|
[
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
0,
61
]
},
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
0,
102
]
}
] |
[
"causal oversimplification: X = CO2 doesn't hurt, Y = climate change is not a danger, A = CO2 is not the only issue, there are temperatures, B = acidification of rains, C = storms, etc.",
"false causality: A = CO2 hurts nobody, B = CO2 is good for plant"
] |
{"Carbon dioxide hurts nobody' s health.": [["false analogy"], ["causal oversimplification"]], "It' s good for plants.": [["false analogy"], ["causal oversimplification"]], "Climate change need not endanger anyone.": [["causal oversimplification"]]}
| 12
|
[] |
Mr. Governor issues a proclamation for the people of his state to pray for rain. Several months later, it rains. Praise the gods!
|
[
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
0,
129
]
},
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
129
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to ridicule: Person 1=Mr. Governor, X=issues a proclamation for the people of his state to pray for rain, Person 2=Speaker, X'=Mr.Governor issues a proclamation for the people of his state to pray for rain. Praise the gods! (sarcastic)",
"False causality: A=Praying for rain, B=it rained",
"False causality: Praying for rain is usual in some cultures but it cannot cause rain.",
"OR between the two, not a AND",
"appeal to ridicule: if we consider that the last sentence is sarcastic."
] |
{"Mr. Governor issues a proclamation for the people of his state to pray for rain.": [["false causality", "appeal to ridicule"]], "Several months later, it rains.": [["false causality", "appeal to ridicule"]], "Praise the gods!": [["false causality", "appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 13
|
[] |
Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago. North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. It's a mistake.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
0,
417
]
},
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
117,
417
]
},
{
"label": "guilt by association",
"location": [
253,
417
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to fear: X: Lifting Iran's sanctions, Y: Iran is moving forward to having nuclear weapons and the sponsor terrorism.",
"Appeal to fear: while it is true that having more nuclear weapons doesn't inspire confidence, there are other arguements for or against lifting sanctions.",
"False Analogy: X: Iran has moved forward to have nuclear weapons, Y: North Korea has nuclear weapons, P: The poster considers both of them have the same geopolitical situation.",
"False analogy: while we want to remove red herring, in that case North korea has nothing to do in the argumentation, hence it is a red herring. It is irrelevant to iran's sanctions. But we replace by a false analogy since the geopolitical situation of the two countries is very different.",
"Guilt by association: P1: VP, P2: Iran, Y: P1 and P2 stated Iran's sanctions should be lifted. A: Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.",
"guilt by association: VP said lifting sanctions. Iran said lifting sanctions. Iran is evil. Sanctions must remain."
] |
{"Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program.": [["appeal to fear"]], "They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago.": [["appeal to fear"]], "North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons.": [["appeal to fear"], ["false analogy"]], "This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.": [["appeal to fear"], ["false analogy"], ["guilt by association"]], "It's a mistake.": [["appeal to fear"], ["false analogy"], ["guilt by association"]]}
| 14
|
[] |
TITLE: Sweden sees higher coronavirus death rate than US after refusing lockdown POST: I wonder how is New York planning on getting out of the lockdown, because when they get out of lockdown probably some cases are going to be going on and the whole infection thing will start again. POST: You cant stop nature. Youre going to be infected if you havent already. We are always trying to fight nature. We just have to let it run its course.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
290,
438
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to nature: Y=We should fight covid, X=Covid and its consequences"
] |
{"TITLE: Sweden sees higher coronavirus death rate than US after refusing lockdown POST: I wonder how is New York planning on getting out of the lockdown, because when they get out of lockdown probably some cases are going to be going on and the whole infection thing will start again.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "You cant stop nature.": [["appeal to nature"]], "Youre going to be infected if you havent already.": [["appeal to nature"]], "We are always trying to fight nature.": [["appeal to nature"]], "We just have to let it run its course.": [["appeal to nature"]]}
| 15
|
[] |
Jeff is preparing to create a commercial for a new energy drink. He visits a local high school and surveys students in an English class about their beverage preferences. The majority of the class says they prefer grape flavored drinks, so Jeff tells his superiors that grape is the flavor favored most by high school students. What error in reasoning has Jeff made?
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
170,
326
]
}
] |
[
"CLEAN last sentence",
"Hasty generalization: S=One highschool class, P=All highschool student, C=like a specific flavor",
"using a class to concluse for all high schools is a hasty gen."
] |
{"Jeff is preparing to create a commercial for a new energy drink.": [["nothing"]], "He visits a local high school and surveys students in an English class about their beverage preferences.": [["nothing"]], "The majority of the class says they prefer grape flavored drinks, so Jeff tells his superiors that grape is the flavor favored most by high school students.": [["hasty generalization"]], "What error in reasoning has Jeff made?": [["nothing"]]}
| 16
|
[] |
The Freehold Raceway Mall is the best mall because there are always so many cars there.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
0,
87
]
}
] |
[
"It could be the best mall for auther reasons.",
"causal oversimplification: X = there are always so many cars in the Freehold Raceway Mall., Y = The Freehold Raceway Mall is the best mall, A = it could be because there are a lot of stores, B = because it is easily accesible, C = because there are play area for children, etc."
] |
{"The Freehold Raceway Mall is the best mall because there are always so many cars there.": [["causal oversimplification"]]}
| 17
|
[] |
TITLE: Can I get into finance with a Law degree? POST: I have a JD, an MBA, and an MSF so I am pretty well versed in the skill sets. What about a JD would make you think you could do finance? It is a pretty in depth math program. There are some advanced math skills needed that are covered nowhere in undergrad or a JD unless you were also a finance major for BS. This is law school arrogance at its finest. Why not a brain surgeon?
|
[
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
364,
432
]
},
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
364,
432
]
}
] |
[
"Ad hominem: Person 1=OP, Y=It seems possible to have a work in finance with a law degree, A=Person 1 is arrogant (meaning he overestimates himself)",
"Appeal to ridicule: Person 1=OP, X=It seems possible to have a work in finance after doing a law school, Person 2=Poster, X'=Law school is so great that they can everything even surgeon",
"ad hominem: the post creator is taxed of arrogance to discredite him.",
"appeal to ridicule: comparison with surgeon studies"
] |
{"TITLE: Can I get into finance with a Law degree?": [["nothing"]], "POST: I have a JD, an MBA, and an MSF so I am pretty well versed in the skill sets.": [["nothing"]], "What about a JD would make you think you could do finance?": [["nothing"]], "It is a pretty in depth math program.": [["nothing"]], "There are some advanced math skills needed that are covered nowhere in undergrad or a JD unless you were also a finance major for BS.": [["nothing"]], "This is law school arrogance at its finest.": [["ad hominem", "appeal to ridicule"]], "Why not a brain surgeon?": [["ad hominem", "appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 18
|
[] |
The sea-ice loss is President Vladimir Putin' s gain. Already the largest country on the planet, Russia stands to gain access to shipping routes and energy reserves, and a strategic military advantage from the opening of the Arctic. Along the Russian coastline, which makes up more than half the Arctic total, winds and currents push old ice away from potential shipping lanes and prevent the build-up of thicker, multi-year ice that would leave other parts of the Arctic impassable for longer periods.
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[] |
{"The sea-ice loss is President Vladimir Putin' s gain.": [["nothing"]], "Already the largest country on the planet, Russia stands to gain access to shipping routes and energy reserves, and a strategic military advantage from the opening of the Arctic.": [["nothing"]], "Along the Russian coastline, which makes up more than half the Arctic total, winds and currents push old ice away from potential shipping lanes and prevent the build-up of thicker, multi-year ice that would leave other parts of the Arctic impassable for longer periods.": [["nothing"]]}
| 19
|
[] |
My first day of basketball practice was easy, so it will always be easy.
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
72
]
}
] |
[
"A= the first practice was easy\nB= all practices will always be easy"
] |
{"My first day of basketball practice was easy, so it will always be easy.": [["false causality"]]}
| 20
|
[] |
Brandon: We should have tastier lunches! Jaylen: Don't listen to him! He's a terrible person! I saw him trip another student and steal his lunch money!
|
[
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
49,
151
]
}
] |
[
"Y = lunches are bad, Person1 = Brandon"
] |
{"Brandon: We should have tastier lunches!": [["nothing"]], "Jaylen:": [["nothing"]], "Don't listen to him!": [["ad hominem"]], "He's a terrible person!": [["ad hominem"]], "I saw him trip another student and steal his lunch money!": [["ad hominem"]]}
| 21
|
[] |
TITLE: Sound familiar? POST: ok but can I just say - no his doesn't sound familiar. The left is asking for expanding background checks, closing the gun show loop hole, maybe registering firearms and creating a system that addresses or catches strawman purchases. We don't need to play this strawman argument game. And we don't need to do the"slippery slope" thing either. Reasonable regulations doesn't lead to the fed keeping lists and someday coming after all gun owners to suppress the working class.
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[] |
{"TITLE: Sound familiar?": [["nothing"]], "POST: ok but can I just say - no his doesn't sound familiar.": [["nothing"]], "The left is asking for expanding background checks, closing the gun show loop hole, maybe registering firearms and creating a system that addresses or catches strawman purchases.": [["nothing"]], "We don't need to play this strawman argument game.": [["nothing"]], "And we don't need to do the\"slippery slope\" thing either.": [["nothing"]], "Reasonable regulations doesn't lead to the fed keeping lists and someday coming after all gun owners to suppress the working class.": [["nothing"]]}
| 22
|
[] |
Several years ago, a group of 10 psychologists started a psychology training program. Each of those psychologists is efficient, effective, and highly-regarded. Their training program must be efficient, effective, and highly-regarded.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
0,
233
]
},
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
117,
233
]
}
] |
[
"False analogy: X = teaching skills, Y = psychology skills, P = efficient, effective,...",
"causal oversimplification: X = efficient psychologists, Y = efficient teachers"
] |
{"Several years ago, a group of 10 psychologists started a psychology training program.": [["causal oversimplification"]], "Each of those psychologists is efficient, effective, and highly-regarded.": [["causal oversimplification"]], "Their training program must be efficient, effective, and highly-regarded.": [["causal oversimplification"], ["false analogy"]], "efficient, effective, and highly-regarded.": [["false analogy"]]}
| 23
|
[] |
I lost my phone in the living room, so it will always be in the living room when it is lost.
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
92
]
}
] |
[
"A = phone in the living room, B = phone forever in the living room"
] |
{"I lost my phone in the living room, so it will always be in the living room when it is lost.": [["false causality"]]}
| 24
|
[] |
TITLE: Bar in Thurles in trouble over ad featuring Jesus with a pint. Christians are slowly becoming bigger snowflakes than Muslims. POST: So was the bar burned by a mob and the owner killed? If not, Christians have a ways to go before they are on par with Muslims.
|
[
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
139,
265
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
139,
265
]
}
] |
[
"Hasty Generalization: S=Christian/Muslim extremists, P=All Christians/Muslims",
"false dilemma: X = Christians burned the bar and are like Muslims, Y = Christians did'nt burn the bar and are not like Muslims"
] |
{"TITLE: Bar in Thurles in trouble over ad featuring Jesus with a pint.": [["nothing"]], "Christians are slowly becoming bigger snowflakes than Muslims.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "So was the bar burned by a mob and the owner killed?": [["hasty generalization", "false dilemma"]], "If not, Christians have a ways to go before they are on par with Muslims.": [["hasty generalization", "false dilemma"]]}
| 25
|
[] |
TITLE: Now We Know Who Sold the Bottom at $6k And Tried To Crash Bitcoin - Spoiler alert: it was Mt.Gox trustee POST: can anyone explain the part where it says he tried to crash the market at 6k?.... i dont get the reasoning behind this? POST: If you sell at high prices, that makes sense, doesn't it? If you sell at bottom, you're either panicking or trying to crash the price of the asset you're selling. So if he sold big amounts at 6k, he tried to bring the price even lower and cause a total sell off. That is my logic.
|
[
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
302,
406
]
}
] |
[
"X = panicking, Y = crash the price"
] |
{"TITLE: Now We Know Who Sold the Bottom at $6k And Tried To Crash Bitcoin - Spoiler alert: it was Mt.Gox trustee POST: can anyone explain the part where it says he tried to crash the market at 6k?....": [["nothing"]], "i dont get the reasoning behind this?": [["nothing"]], "POST: If you sell at high prices, that makes sense, doesn't it?": [["nothing"]], "If you sell at bottom, you're either panicking or trying to crash the price of the asset you're selling.": [["false dilemma"]], "So if he sold big amounts at 6k, he tried to bring the price even lower and cause a total sell off.": [["nothing"]], "That is my logic.": [["nothing"]]}
| 26
|
[] |
TITLE: Transgender brain scans promised as study shows structural differences in people with gender dysphoria POST: So now the far left is going to have to admit that there is a difference between the brains of men and women and their behavior isn't just a social construct that is created by what toys they are raised with? Looks like the exception is charging to the rescue of the norm. Plot twist!
|
[
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
116,
324
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
116,
400
]
}
] |
[
"Hasty gen: S = one study",
"Straw man: Y = Transgender difference distorted to women and men, and the thesis of lefties about gender is distorted too"
] |
{"TITLE: Transgender brain scans promised as study shows structural differences in people with gender dysphoria POST:": [["nothing"]], "So now the far left is going to have to admit that there is a difference between the brains of men and women and their behavior isn't just a social construct that is created by what toys they are raised with?": [["straw man"], ["hasty generalization"]], "Looks like the exception is charging to the rescue of the norm.": [["hasty generalization"]], "Plot twist!": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 27
|
[] |
The spider that bit was poison, therefore all spiders are poison.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
0,
65
]
}
] |
[
"S = a spider, P = all spiders, C = all spiders are poison"
] |
{"The spider that bit was poison, therefore all spiders are poison.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 28
|
[] |
Next week he will be in Paris, a city terrorized yet again by mass murderers, for a summit with other world leaders on climate change, not terrorism. What precisely makes these world leaders so convinced that climate change is a more urgent and massive threat than the incessant rampages of Islamist violence? It can not be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to anger",
"location": [
150,
309
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
150,
309
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
150,
309
]
}
] |
[
"False Dilemma: X=tackle climate change Y=tackle Islamist violence",
"P1 = the speaker, X = climate change is less important than terrorism",
"S = Climate change is a threat, B = terrorism is a bigger threat"
] |
{"Next week he will be in Paris, a city terrorized yet again by mass murderers, for a summit with other world leaders on climate change, not terrorism.": [["nothing"]], "What precisely makes these world leaders so convinced that climate change is a more urgent and massive threat than the incessant rampages of Islamist violence?": [["appeal to anger", "appeal to worse problems", "false dilemma"]], "It can not be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest.": [["nothing"]]}
| 29
|
[] |
These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they're going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as I say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we're not going to simply kill some people to say,"Oh, look, we got even.''
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[] |
{"These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they're going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it.": [["nothing"]], "We are going to, as I say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken.": [["nothing"]], "But we're not going to simply kill some people to say,\"Oh, look, we got even.''\n": [["nothing"]]}
| 30
|
[] |
smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
60
]
}
] |
[
"X = cigarettes kill, Y = cigarettes are deadly"
] |
{"smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 31
|
[] |
TITLE: To guilt people into not buying meat POST: Comment overwritten by Power Delete Suite for privacy purpose. POST: Do any of you self-righteous pricks understand in the slightest capacity how nature works? There are 4.6 BILLION FUCKING YEARS of evolution on this planet across hundreds upon hundreds of millions of species and not a goddamned one of them, with the exception of you idiots, has any problem with killing for food. It's in the DNA of every single creature on this planet, and it's the SOLE FUCKING REASON that either of us exist. Killing for food is 100% acceptable and morally right, and the suffering of the animals involved is fucking irrelevant. Lions don't give a fuck about the screams of a wildebeest as they disembowel it for a dinner. There is nothing, save for your ego, that gives you a reason to act or feel any different.
|
[
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
119,
432
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
210,
852
]
}
] |
[
"Ad hominem: Y: being vegeterian is good, P1: creator of the thread",
"Appeal to Nature: X=Evolution led to Hunting / Hunting is in our DNA"
] |
{"TITLE: To guilt people into not buying meat POST: Comment overwritten by Power Delete Suite for privacy purpose.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Do any of you self-righteous pricks understand in the slightest capacity how nature works?": [["ad hominem"]], "There are 4.6 BILLION FUCKING YEARS of evolution on this planet across hundreds upon hundreds of millions of species and not a goddamned one of them, with the exception of you idiots, has any problem with killing for food.": [["ad hominem"], ["appeal to nature"]], "It's in the DNA of every single creature on this planet, and it's the SOLE FUCKING REASON that either of us exist.": [["appeal to nature"]], "Killing for food is 100% acceptable and morally right, and the suffering of the animals involved is fucking irrelevant.": [["appeal to nature"]], "Lions don't give a fuck about the screams of a wildebeest as they disembowel it for a dinner.": [["appeal to nature"]], "There is nothing, save for your ego, that gives you a reason to act or feel any different.": [["appeal to nature"]]}
| 32
|
[] |
Everybody who's looked at it, 500 economists, seven Nobel prize winners, say it's bad for the economy. It's going to blow a hole in the deficit It's going to raise taxes on nine million people and require bigger cuts than the one I vetoed. Our plan is better, it will take us into the future with a growing economy and healthier families.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to (false) authority",
"location": [
0,
102
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
103,
239
]
},
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
103,
239
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
103,
338
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to positive emotion",
"location": [
240,
338
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to Fear: X = If you don't accept that is bad to our econmy, Y: It's going to blow a hole in the deficit It's going to raise taxes on nine million people and require bigger cuts than the one I vetoed",
"Appeal to authority: Y = bad for economy, P1 = 500 economists including 7 nobel",
"Appeal to positive emotion: A = our plan is better, it will makes us better",
"False Dilemma: X=Apply a plan that will have a negative economic impact or Y=Apply our plan that will lead us into a growing economy",
"Slippery slop: A = deficit, B = raise taxes, C = bigger cuts"
] |
{"Everybody who's looked at it, 500 economists, seven Nobel prize winners, say it's bad for the economy.": [["appeal to (false) authority"]], "It's going to blow a hole in the deficit It's going to raise taxes on nine million people and require bigger cuts than the one I vetoed.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"], ["false dilemma"]], "Our plan is better, it will take us into the future with a growing economy and healthier families.": [["false dilemma"], ["appeal to positive emotion"]]}
| 33
|
[] |
If indoor smoking laws are passed for bars, the bars will go out of business since people who drink, smoke while they drink.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
0,
124
]
},
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
0,
124
]
}
] |
[
"Causal oversimplification: X: If indoor smoking laws are passed, Y: Bars will go out of business",
"slippery slope: A = people drink, B = people smoke, C = people can't smoke, D = bars ran out of business"
] |
{"If indoor smoking laws are passed for bars, the bars will go out of business since people who drink, smoke while they drink.": [["causal oversimplification", "slippery slope"]]}
| 34
|
[] |
You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says, and the law is the law.
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
105
]
}
] |
[
"X = the law is the law"
] |
{"You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says, and the law is the law.": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 35
|
[] |
TITLE: But I read an article! POST: Honestly though, a PhD is not necessary to have an informed opinion. If that were the case, a lot of pro vaxxers wouldn't have an informed opinion either and let's be honest: they don't. Herd mentality is as much a thing as herd immunity. What antivaxxers need is someone with a PhD drawing a conclusion they agree with so they can repeat and circlejerk that to oblivion. And someone with a PhD should know the difference between an actual result and"oh hey one number out of 100 says this so it must be true". And even then they will be a minority, but at least it can sufficiently instigate some doubt.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
105,
222
]
},
{
"label": "equivocation",
"location": [
105,
274
]
},
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
275,
546
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to Ridicule: Person 1=Antivaxxers, X=They are looking for proof, Person 2=Speaker, X'=They are looking for *any* proof (Confirmation bias)",
"Equivocation: T = herd, A = herd mentality, B = herd immunity.",
"hasty generalization: S: PhD is not neccesary to have an informed opinion, P: PhDs, C: Pro-vaxxers wouldn't have an informed opinion"
] |
{"TITLE: But I read an article!": [["nothing"]], "POST: Honestly though, a PhD is not necessary to have an informed opinion.": [["nothing"]], "If that were the case, a lot of pro vaxxers wouldn't have an informed opinion either and let's be honest: they don't.": [["hasty generalization"], ["equivocation"]], "Herd mentality is as much a thing as herd immunity.": [["equivocation"]], "What antivaxxers need is someone with a PhD drawing a conclusion they agree with so they can repeat and circlejerk that to oblivion.": [["appeal to ridicule"]], "And someone with a PhD should know the difference between an actual result and\"oh hey one number out of 100 says this so it must be true\".": [["appeal to ridicule"]], "And even then they will be a minority, but at least it can sufficiently instigate some doubt.": [["nothing"]]}
| 36
|
[] |
I'm proud of that. It happened because I could work with people -- Republicans and Democrats. That's why we've had 24 retired generals and admirals, hundreds of business people, many of them Republican, support this campaign. You have to decide whether you want to change or not.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to (false) authority",
"location": [
19,
279
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
226,
279
]
}
] |
[
"appeal to false authority: P1 = republicans, democrats, generals, Y = follow me",
"false dilemma: X=Speaker's Changes or Y=No change"
] |
{"I'm proud of that.": [["nothing"]], "It happened because I could work with people -- Republicans and Democrats.": [["appeal to (false) authority"]], "That's why we've had 24 retired generals and admirals, hundreds of business people, many of them Republican, support this campaign.": [["appeal to (false) authority"]], "You have to decide whether you want to change or not.": [["appeal to (false) authority"], ["false dilemma"]]}
| 37
|
[] |
Fortnite is the best game ever. Everyone is playing it!
|
[
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
0,
55
]
}
] |
[
"Ad Populum: X: Fornite is the best game ever"
] |
{"Fortnite is the best game ever.": [["ad populum"]], "Everyone is playing it!": [["ad populum"]]}
| 38
|
[] |
Every sunrise, the rooster makes a sound. So it is the rooster which makes the sun rise.
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
88
]
}
] |
[
"A = rooster makes a sound, B = the sun rise"
] |
{"Every sunrise, the rooster makes a sound.": [["false causality"]], "So it is the rooster which makes the sun rise.": [["false causality"]]}
| 39
|
[] |
I passed my math test after going out to the movies the night before. I should go to the movies the night before every math test!
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
129
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
0,
129
]
}
] |
[
"False Causality: A=Going to see a movie then night before, B=Passed the math test",
"hasty gen: S = one math test successfuly passed after watching a movie, P = all math tests, C = all math tests should be passed after having seen a movie"
] |
{"I passed my math test after going out to the movies the night before.": [["false causality", "hasty generalization"]], "I should go to the movies the night before every math test!": [["false causality", "hasty generalization"]]}
| 40
|
[] |
According to Freud, your belief in God stems from your need for a strong father figure. So don't you see that it's silly to continue believing in God?
|
[
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
0,
150
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to (false) authority",
"location": [
0,
150
]
},
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
0,
150
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to (false) authority: P1: Freud, Y: You don't have to believe in God",
"Causal oversimplification: X=Need for a strong father figure, Y=Believing in God, however A, B, C=significant life event, personnal experiences, fear of death",
"appeal to ridicule: P1 = Freud, X = you believe in god bc you need a strong father figure, which is silly"
] |
{"According to Freud, your belief in God stems from your need for a strong father figure.": [["causal oversimplification", "appeal to (false) authority", "appeal to ridicule"]], "So don't you see that it's silly to continue believing in God?": [["causal oversimplification", "appeal to (false) authority", "appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 41
|
[] |
TITLE: AITA for getting pissed that my (now) vegan GF refuses to live with me if I eat meat? POST: Human are omnivores. End of argument. If she doesnt want to live with meat eating, make a parenting plan in court and she can pay child support for the kid that lives with you fill time that she wont raise since meat is around. Easy.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
99,
136
]
}
] |
[
"X = eating meat is natural"
] |
{"TITLE: AITA for getting pissed that my (now) vegan GF refuses to live with me if I eat meat?": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Human are omnivores.": [["appeal to nature"]], "End of argument.": [["appeal to nature"]], "If she doesnt want to live with meat eating, make a parenting plan in court and she can pay child support for the kid that lives with you fill time that she wont raise since meat is around.": [["nothing"]], "Easy.": [["nothing"]]}
| 42
|
[] |
TITLE: Don't forget to offer acts of reparation for the frequent acts of desecration/sacrilege against the Eucharist POST: I got into a discussion with someone on here who claimed that even though he supported legalized abortion and was pro choice he still received. It broke my heart. And he was flippant and dismissive. The Eucharist is not a reward or something you deserve if you are obstinate to church teachings POST: There are valid reasons to be both Catholic and support legalized abortion. Studies show that abortions occur just as frequently in nations where it is legal as nations where it is not. Nations with no legal abortions have higher rates of unsafe abortions, maternal death, and female teen suicide. We must care about the health and life of women too. These women are at their lowest and need compassion and safety. If restricting and banning abortion doesn't lower the rates of abortions, but instead causes more harm and death, it is not a good policy. <URL> Choosing compassion over virtue signaling should not place any individual in mortal sin. After all, 51% of US Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. <URL>
|
[
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
123,
266
]
},
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
286,
417
]
},
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
},
{
"label": "to clean",
"location": [
610,
977
]
},
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
984,
1158
]
}
] |
[
"Ad Hominem: P1: He, X: P1 deserved Eucharist, A: P1 was dismissive and flippant, Y: He doesn't deserve Eucharist",
"Ad Populum: X: 51% of US Catholics believe abortion should be legal, Y: Abortion is compatible with catholicisim.",
"false dilemma: X = catholic and against abortion, Y = or not catholic",
"to clean: This could be an appeal to pity, but we should check other annotated appeal to pity to compare the situations. We could be biased"
] |
{"TITLE: Don't forget to offer acts of reparation for the frequent acts of desecration/sacrilege against the Eucharist POST:": [["nothing"]], "I got into a discussion with someone on here who claimed that even though he supported legalized abortion and was pro choice he still received.": [["false dilemma"]], "It broke my heart.": [["nothing"]], "And he was flippant and dismissive.": [["nothing", "ad hominem"]], "The Eucharist is not a reward or something you deserve if you are obstinate to church teachings": [["nothing", "ad hominem"]], "POST: There are valid reasons to be both Catholic and support legalized abortion.": [["nothing"]], "Studies show that abortions occur just as frequently in nations where it is legal as nations where it is not.": [["nothing"]], "Choosing compassion over virtue signaling should not place any individual in mortal sin.": [["ad populum"]], "After all, 51% of US Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.": [["ad populum"]]}
| 43
|
[] |
TITLE: So Pointy! POST: I dont have to justify it, vegans assume most people consider an animal life to be on par with human life, its not. If I was in the position to save my pet or a stranger Id never met before of course I would save the human. I dont want animals to suffer and I earn enough that I can afford to buy free range meat from reliable sources, I dont feel bad that an animal was killed so I can eat it, I dont believe its wrong in anyway so long as while its alive it isnt mistreated. There is nothing morally wrong about killing animals for food, you realise animals kill other animals for food too right?
|
[
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
24,
139
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
501,
622
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to nature: X: It is natural to kill animals for food.",
"Strawman: Y = we shouldn't eat animals to avoid them suffering, Y' = animals equals human. Hence, Y' being false, Y is false too."
] |
{"TITLE: So Pointy!": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "I dont have to justify it, vegans assume most people consider an animal life to be on par with human life, its not.": [["straw man"]], "If I was in the position to save my pet or a stranger Id never met before of course I would save the human.": [["nothing"]], "I dont want animals to suffer and I earn enough that I can afford to buy free range meat from reliable sources, I dont feel bad that an animal was killed so I can eat it, I dont believe its wrong in anyway so long as while its alive it isnt mistreated.": [["nothing"]], "There is nothing morally wrong about killing animals for food, you realise animals kill other animals for food too right?": [["appeal to nature"]]}
| 44
|
[] |
If you would have supported that attitude -- if you would have supported that attitude, we would not have won the Cold War. We won the Cold War because we invested and we went forward. (APPLAUSE.)
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
124,
184
]
}
] |
[
"causal oversimplification: X = we went forward, Y = won the Cold War"
] |
{"If you would have supported that attitude -- if you would have supported that attitude, we would not have won the Cold War.": [["nothing"]], "We won the Cold War because we invested and we went forward.": [["causal oversimplification"]], "(APPLAUSE.)\n": [["nothing"]]}
| 45
|
[] |
He was born to Catholic parents and raised as a Catholic until his confirmation in 8th grade. Therefore, he is bound to want to defend some Catholic traditions and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
202
]
},
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
94,
202
]
},
{
"label": "guilt by association",
"location": [
94,
202
]
}
] |
[
"Ad Hominem: Person 1=He, Y=we should defend some Catholic traditions, Perso 1's charactere=Catholic therefore biased on the topic",
"false causality: X = being Catholic, Y = cannot be taken seriously",
"guilt by association: Y = something related to a catholic tradition, P1 = a catholic, P2 = the Catholic Church"
] |
{"He was born to Catholic parents and raised as a Catholic until his confirmation in 8th grade.": [["false causality"]], "Therefore, he is bound to want to defend some Catholic traditions and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.": [["false causality"], ["guilt by association", "ad hominem"]]}
| 46
|
[] |
Every action being taken against terrorists requires court order, requires scrutiny. As a matter of fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we've been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals. So I really don't think so.
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[] |
{"Every action being taken against terrorists requires court order, requires scrutiny.": [["nothing"]], "As a matter of fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we've been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals.": [["nothing"]], "So I really don't think so.": [["nothing"]]}
| 47
|
[] |
My way of responding to difficult patients is by far the most ethical because no other way is so ethical and it is the only way that is completely ethical.
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
155
]
}
] |
[
"X = my way is the only one that is ethical OR X = my way is ethical, Y = no other ways are ethical"
] |
{"My way of responding to difficult patients is by far the most ethical because no other way is so ethical and it is the only way that is completely ethical.": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 48
|
[] |
TITLE: Thirty years after Tiananmen, protesters' goals further away than ever:"Now, democracy is not only facing problems in China. Democracy cannot survive if China is the global power." POST: Well, democracy gave us Trump to the whole world. I'll let others judge what democracy is. POST: Lets see what other system gave us. Communism gave us the Kim dynasty that destroyed their own country. Fascism gave us Franco that kept his country decades in the past in every manner. Monarchism gave us Leopold II of Belgium who committed genocides in Africa Theocracy gave us Pope John XII who fucked half of rome So as we can easily gather, every for of government had its share of shitty figureheads. That doesnt prove anything. At least in democracy we have the chance to switch them, you know what they do in other forms of government? Wait. North korea is still waiting on the Kim dynasty to die off, Spain had to wait until Franco dies to start modernizing, the people of Congo had to wait until Leo II died so they can stop getting killed, and the catholic world had to wait until John XII to normalize again.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
194,
284
]
},
{
"label": "guilt by association",
"location": [
194,
284
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
194,
284
]
}
] |
[
"Causal Oversimplification: X: Democracy Y: Trump president",
"Hasty generalization: S=Trump, P=All presidents",
"guilt by association: Y = Democracy is good, P1 = democracy defenders, P2 = Trump"
] |
{"TITLE: Thirty years after Tiananmen, protesters' goals further away than ever:\"Now, democracy is not only facing problems in China.": [["nothing"]], "Democracy cannot survive if China is the global power.\" POST:": [["nothing"]], "Well, democracy gave us Trump to the whole world.": [["causal oversimplification", "guilt by association", "hasty generalization"]], "I'll let others judge what democracy is.": [["causal oversimplification", "guilt by association", "hasty generalization"]], "POST: Lets see what other system gave us.": [["nothing"]], "Communism gave us the Kim dynasty that destroyed their own country.": [["nothing"]], "Fascism gave us Franco that kept his country decades in the past in every manner.": [["nothing"]], "Monarchism gave us Leopold II of Belgium who committed genocides in Africa Theocracy gave us Pope John XII who fucked half of rome So as we can easily gather, every for of government had its share of shitty figureheads.": [["nothing"]], "That doesnt prove anything.": [["nothing"]], "At least in democracy we have the chance to switch them, you know what they do in other forms of government?": [["nothing"]], "Wait.": [["nothing"]], "North korea is still waiting on the Kim dynasty to die off, Spain had to wait until Franco dies to start modernizing, the people of Congo had to wait until Leo II died so they can stop getting killed, and the catholic world had to wait until John XII to normalize again.": [["nothing"]]}
| 49
|
[] |
Chihuahuas are good inside dogs. German Shepherds are dogs; therefore, German Shepherds would be good inside dogs, too.
|
[
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
0,
119
]
}
] |
[
"X = German Shephers, Y = Chihuahuas, P = good inside dogs"
] |
{"Chihuahuas are good inside dogs.": [["false analogy"]], "German Shepherds are dogs; therefore, German Shepherds would be good inside dogs, too.": [["false analogy"]]}
| 50
|
[] |
TITLE: Explain why you find sausages, lasagna, steak, and tacos delicious like I am your crazy extremist vegan girlfriend who believes eating cheese, let alone meat, is worse than the holocaust. POST: Most animals, including humans are meant to consume meat. Humans would've probably died out by eating vegetables alone. So why not doing what we were meant to do by enjoying some salmon? Or do you actually think fish is okay since you don't think they look cute?
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
201,
387
]
},
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
321,
463
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to Ridicule: P1: Vegetarian who eats fish, P2: Not vegetarian. X: vegetarians should not eat fish either.",
"Appeal to nature: X=Human, like other animals, are able to eat meat, Y=Human should restrain from eating meat"
] |
{"TITLE: Explain why you find sausages, lasagna, steak, and tacos delicious like I am your crazy extremist vegan girlfriend who believes eating cheese, let alone meat, is worse than the holocaust.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Most animals, including humans are meant to consume meat.": [["appeal to nature"]], "Humans would've probably died out by eating vegetables alone.": [["appeal to nature"]], "So why not doing what we were meant to do by enjoying some salmon?": [["appeal to nature"], ["appeal to ridicule"]], "Or do you actually think fish is okay since you don't think they look cute?": [["appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 51
|
[] |
The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world. So every American is wealthy.
|
[
{
"label": "fallacy of division",
"location": [
0,
86
]
}
] |
[
"fallacy of division: A = a random american, B = USA, X = B is wealthy"
] |
{"The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world.": [["fallacy of division"]], "So every American is wealthy.": [["fallacy of division"]]}
| 52
|
[] |
Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road. As he goes by, the driver yells"get on the sidewalk where you belong!" Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
193,
348
]
}
] |
[
"P = Ohio drivers, S = the Ohio driver, C = Ohio drivers suck"
] |
{"Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business.": [["nothing"]], "A station wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road.": [["nothing"]], "As he goes by, the driver yells\"get on the sidewalk where you belong!\" Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 53
|
[] |
TITLE: Florida officer planted drugs on over 100 victims: DA has not moved to vacate any charges against his victims, some of whom are still imprisoned[2019] POST: Wow, over 100 victims... that's horrible. What was the motive behind such a terrible way of life, and personality? POST: Advancement and maybe kickbacks? Either that or he's just a psychopath who gets off on destroying people's lives. Either way this asshole should never see the light of day again.
|
[
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
285,
463
]
},
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
318,
463
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to anger",
"location": [
318,
463
]
}
] |
[
"Ad hominem: P1 = The former officer, Y = (implicit) P1 shold be released one day, but P1 is an asshole",
"Appeal to Anger: Person 1=Speaker, X=The officer should go to prison for life, Person 1 is outrage because The officier act as an asshole or a psychopath",
"False dilemma: X: Advancement and maybe kickbacks, Y: A psychopath who gets off on destroying people's lives"
] |
{"TITLE: Florida officer planted drugs on over 100 victims: DA has not moved to vacate any charges against his victims, some of whom are still imprisoned[2019] POST: Wow, over 100 victims...": [["nothing"]], "that's horrible.": [["nothing"]], "What was the motive behind such a terrible way of life, and personality?": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Advancement and maybe kickbacks?": [["false dilemma"]], "Either that or he's just a psychopath who gets off on destroying people's lives.": [["false dilemma"], ["appeal to anger", "ad hominem"]], "Either way this asshole should never see the light of day again.": [["false dilemma"], ["appeal to anger", "ad hominem"]]}
| 54
|
[] |
only man is rational no women is man Therefore, no women is rational
|
[
{
"label": "equivocation",
"location": [
0,
68
]
}
] |
[
"equivocation: A = man can be person, B = man is mankind"
] |
{"only man is rational no women is man Therefore, no women is rational": [["equivocation"]]}
| 55
|
[] |
You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
|
[
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
0,
188
]
}
] |
[
"slippery slope: A = start gambling, B = hard to stop, C = spending all money, D = turn to crime"
] |
{"You should never gamble.": [["slippery slope"]], "Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop.": [["slippery slope"]], "Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.": [["slippery slope"]]}
| 56
|
[] |
If it is very low, for instance around one, it means greenhouse gas emissions are simply not worth doing anything about. But if ECS is high -- say, around four degrees or more -- then climate change is probably a big problem. We may not be able to stop it, but we' d better get ready to adapt to it.
|
[
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
0,
299
]
}
] |
[
"false dilemma: X = < 1 is not a big problem, Y = > 4 is a big problem"
] |
{"If it is very low, for instance around one, it means greenhouse gas emissions are simply not worth doing anything about.": [["false dilemma"]], "But if ECS is high -- say, around four degrees or more -- then climate change is probably a big problem.": [["false dilemma"]], "We may not be able to stop it, but we' d better get ready to adapt to it.": [["false dilemma"]]}
| 57
|
[] |
TITLE: Vote Leave fined and reported to police by Electoral Commission - The Guardian POST: Two groups working towards the same goal shared some information. Big deal. Hopefully the police will use their resources on more serious issues such as knife crime, drug gangs and scooter criminals.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
168,
291
]
}
] |
[
"appeal to worse problem: S = police should care about information sharing between to political groups, B = police should care about dangerous crimes. Hence S is false"
] |
{"TITLE: Vote Leave fined and reported to police by Electoral Commission - The Guardian POST: Two groups working towards the same goal shared some information.": [["nothing"]], "Big deal.": [["nothing"]], "Hopefully the police will use their resources on more serious issues such as knife crime, drug gangs and scooter criminals.": [["appeal to worse problems"]]}
| 58
|
[] |
TITLE: Bigfoot reportedly seen, going INSIDE a UFO. This has got to be the strangest thing I have came across. Were the Missing, brought inside the UFO, too? POST: Interesting story, but sadly no substantial evidence. Mostly likely a lie for attention. POST: From a practicing judge?
|
[
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
259,
283
]
}
] |
[
"ad hominem: P1 = first poster, P2 = second poster, Y = no substantial evidence, P1 is not a practicing judge therefore he can't say that."
] |
{"TITLE: Bigfoot reportedly seen, going INSIDE a UFO.": [["nothing"]], "This has got to be the strangest thing I have came across.": [["nothing"]], "Were the Missing, brought inside the UFO, too?": [["nothing"]], "POST: Interesting story, but sadly no substantial evidence.": [["nothing"]], "Mostly likely a lie for attention.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "From a practicing judge?": [["ad hominem"]]}
| 59
|
[] |
TITLE: The only conspiracy theory I accept POST: Post is same age as me and hes make bills while I'm slaving away at school and work POST: Yeah, but if youre on Reddit you're probably not one of the millions upon millions of people who are starving or hungry or living in one of the shit holes of the world. Or at least that's my guess. So don't be upset someone is your age and way luckier than you, be thankful you weren't born into worse circumstances because there are likely plenty. Also, fun fact, they've done studies and if you make around $80k in the US anything beyond that doesn't really contribute to your overall happiness. I think what's cooler about Post Malone and other wildly successful people is they are doing what they love doing. That's real success. And you don't need to be a millionaire to have it.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
337,
487
]
},
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
},
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
488,
636
]
},
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
},
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
637,
772
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to worse problem: S=Author of 1st post is in a bad economic situation, B=People in other country are in worse economic situation than Author",
"First Straw man: P1 = first poster, P2 = second poster, Y = Post Malone makes a lot of money while I struggle with school and my job, Y' = salaries above $80k don't improve hapiness. \nIn this case, Y' say that Malone is as happy as if would earn 80k per year, which is not relevant in that case",
"Second Strawman: Person 1: First poster, Person 2: Second poster, Y = Post Malone makes a lot of money while I struggle with school and my job, Y': Post Malone and other successful people make a lot of money and are successful because they love what they are doing."
] |
{"TITLE: The only conspiracy theory I accept POST: Post is same age as me and hes make bills while I'm slaving away at school and work POST: Yeah, but if youre on Reddit you're probably not one of the millions upon millions of people who are starving or hungry or living in one of the shit holes of the world.": [["nothing"]], "Or at least that's my guess.": [["nothing"]], "So don't be upset someone is your age and way luckier than you, be thankful you weren't born into worse circumstances because there are likely plenty.": [["appeal to worse problems"]], "Also, fun fact, they've done studies and if you make around $80k in the US anything beyond that doesn't really contribute to your overall happiness.": [["nothing", "straw man"]], "I think what's cooler about Post Malone and other wildly successful people is they are doing what they love doing.": [["nothing", "straw man"]], "That's real success.": [["nothing", "straw man"]], "And you don't need to be a millionaire to have it.": [["nothing"]]}
| 60
|
[] |
We know God exists because he made everything
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
45
]
}
] |
[
"cicrular reasoning: X = God exists, Y: she made everything, Y' = (implicit) everything exist, X = god exists"
] |
{"We know God exists because he made everything": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 61
|
[] |
TITLE: Incel gets into relationship POST: Its almost like virginity has no bearing on who you are as a person and once you lose it you're still the same as you were before... POST: 2 chicks rejected me for being a virgin. I had sex as soon as I started lying about having had sex. And all those weren't even casual sex, it was in the frame of relationships. Apparently it holds bearing on who you are as a person and you're not the same person when you loose it.
|
[
{
"label": "equivocation",
"location": [
181,
462
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
181,
462
]
}
] |
[
"equivocation: A = who you are as a person -> intrinsically, B = who you are as a person -> observed by other people",
"hasty gen: P = all virgins, S = the poster was a virgin and get rejected, and then lied about his situation and had sex. C = Virginity impact who you are as a person"
] |
{"TITLE: Incel gets into relationship POST: Its almost like virginity has no bearing on who you are as a person and once you lose it you're still the same as you were before...": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "2 chicks rejected me for being a virgin.": [["hasty generalization", "equivocation"]], "I had sex as soon as I started lying about having had sex.": [["hasty generalization", "equivocation"]], "And all those weren't even casual sex, it was in the frame of relationships.": [["hasty generalization", "equivocation"]], "Apparently it holds bearing on who you are as a person and you're not the same person when you loose it.": [["hasty generalization", "equivocation"]]}
| 62
|
[] |
I know that our TV advertisements are more effective than radio. The numbers show that we hit twice the audience with TV, and our focus groups remember the TV commercial 38 percent more than the radio slot.
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[] |
{"I know that our TV advertisements are more effective than radio.": [["nothing"]], "The numbers show that we hit twice the audience with TV, and our focus groups remember the TV commercial 38 percent more than the radio slot.": [["nothing"]]}
| 63
|
[] |
TITLE: What would people think about preventing people from switching out from a pilot seat? i.e. to a gunner position; you'd still be able to bail. POST: This is a ridiculous post and this mechanic will never be changed. Seat switching has always been a BF mechanic. Dont sit here and try and talk about realism or how you shouldnt be able to swap instantly between seats when there is hardly anything realistic about BF vehicle play in general. Sounds like you need to get better if you are having trouble shooting down the most vulnerable aircraft in the sky.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to tradition",
"location": [
155,
267
]
},
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
268,
446
]
},
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
268,
446
]
},
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
447,
562
]
},
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
447,
562
]
}
] |
[
"Ad Hominem: Person 1: OP, Y: prevent seat switching, A: Bad player",
"First appeal to ridicule: P1 = OP, X = prevent seat switching, X' = BF is not realistic",
"Second appeal to ridicule: P1 = OP, X = prevent seat switching, X' = P1 wants the change because he is bad",
"Strawman: Person 1: OP, Y=We should prevent switching place in vehicules for gameplay, Person 2: Speaker, Y'=We should prevent switching place in vehicules for realism",
"appeal to tradition: X = seat switching is part of BF DNA."
] |
{"TITLE: What would people think about preventing people from switching out from a pilot seat?": [["nothing"]], "i.e. to a gunner position; you'd still be able to bail.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "This is a ridiculous post and this mechanic will never be changed.": [["appeal to tradition"]], "Seat switching has always been a BF mechanic.": [["appeal to tradition"]], "Dont sit here and try and talk about realism or how you shouldnt be able to swap instantly between seats when there is hardly anything realistic about BF vehicle play in general.": [["appeal to ridicule", "straw man"]], "Sounds like you need to get better if you are having trouble shooting down the most vulnerable aircraft in the sky.": [["ad hominem", "appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 64
|
[] |
TITLE: Pete Davidson accounted for after disturbing post;'SNL' cast member deletes Instagram. POST: Social media is the worst. People don't realize how much of an effect it has on someone, especially his generation. Anyone in the public eye who has any sort of mental health issue should rid themselves of their accounts if they possibly can. I understand studios force some actors to be active there, but if it's the difference between leading a happy, healthy life or getting a movie role, it really should be an easy decision. POST: Really, the worst? China has people in internment camps and people in the middle east get stoned for not wearing head scarves, but it's social media that's the worst? I think that's a massive exaggeration. Edit: I feel like I need to clarify that I'm not trying to deny what Pete is going through. I am however annoyed by a reference to a social media being"the worst". I'd even argue that saying that undermines the worse problems that he likely has going on here.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
100,
215
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
216,
342
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
555,
702
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to worse problem: S=Social Network is the worst, B=China has internment camps and people in the middle east get stoned for not wearing headscarves",
"False dilemma: X = with no mental issue, one can have a social account, Y = with a mental issue, one can't have a social account",
"Hasty generalization: S: Pete Davidson shouldn't have social media accounts, P: His generation, C: His generation shouldn't have social media accounts."
] |
{"TITLE: Pete Davidson accounted for after disturbing post;'SNL' cast member deletes Instagram.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Social media is the worst.": [["hasty generalization"]], "People don't realize how much of an effect it has on someone, especially his generation.": [["hasty generalization"]], "Anyone in the public eye who has any sort of mental health issue should rid themselves of their accounts if they possibly can.": [["false dilemma"]], "I understand studios force some actors to be active there, but if it's the difference between leading a happy, healthy life or getting a movie role, it really should be an easy decision.": [["nothing"]], "POST: Really, the worst?": [["nothing"]], "China has people in internment camps and people in the middle east get stoned for not wearing head scarves, but it's social media that's the worst?": [["appeal to worse problems"]], "I think that's a massive exaggeration.": [["nothing"]], "Edit: I feel like I need to clarify that I'm not trying to deny what Pete is going through.": [["nothing"]], "I am however annoyed by a reference to a social media being\"the worst\".": [["nothing"]], "I'd even argue that saying that undermines the worse problems that he likely has going on here.": [["nothing"]]}
| 65
|
[] |
Mr. Gough supports the cell phone ban and he's an idiot, so we should let teachers keep their cell phones.
|
[
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
0,
106
]
}
] |
[
"ad hominem: P1 = Mr Gough, Y = ban cell phones, A = P1 is idiot"
] |
{"Mr. Gough supports the cell phone ban and he's an idiot, so we should let teachers keep their cell phones.": [["ad hominem"]]}
| 66
|
[] |
Bill, you drive a beat-up car from the 1980s. For this reason, we can never allow you to be a lifeguard at the community pool.
|
[
{
"label": "ad hominem",
"location": [
0,
126
]
}
] |
[
"Ad hominem : P1 = Bill, Y = P1 wants to be a lifeguard, A = because P1 has a beat-up car, he sucks"
] |
{"Bill, you drive a beat-up car from the 1980s.": [["ad hominem"]], "For this reason, we can never allow you to be a lifeguard at the community pool.": [["ad hominem"]]}
| 67
|
[] |
The teenagers where rude and disrespectful therefore all teenagers are rude and disrespectful.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
0,
94
]
}
] |
[
"hasty gen : P = teenagers, S = a group of teenagers was disrespectful, C = all teenagers are disrespectful"
] |
{"The teenagers where rude and disrespectful therefore all teenagers are rude and disrespectful.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 68
|
[] |
TITLE:'A historic day': Switzerland votes to back new anti-homophobia law POST: This is cool and all, but I'm glad it's not being passed in a country where I live. If you give the government *any* control over what is considered"hate speech", you are basically relinquishing your freedom of speech. It's a slippery slope. For example: saying"hateful" things about Islam becomes illegal. Let's say you criticise Sharia laws (laws based off of the rules set out in Islam for those who are unaware). Next thing you know, your own government has full power to censor this"hate", and you are persecuted simply for disagreeing with the laws of an ally nation. Governments have shown time and time again that they are more than happy to censor and abuse their peoples. Don't ever relinquish your freedoms willingly.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
164,
808
]
},
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
164,
808
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
654,
761
]
},
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to fear: X: If you give contol to the government over what is considered \"hate speech\", Y: They will abuse their power.",
"Hasty gen: P = all governments, S = governments that practiced censorship, C = all governments are willing to censor their citizen.",
"Slippery Slope: A=Give the gouvernement any control over hate speech, B=Forbid hate speech about Islam, C=Forbid criticism about Sharia, D=Forbid any criticism about ally nations' laws, Z=Full government control over speech"
] |
{"TITLE:'A historic day': Switzerland votes to back new anti-homophobia law POST: This is cool and all, but I'm glad it's not being passed in a country where I live.": [["nothing"]], "If you give the government *any* control over what is considered\"hate speech\", you are basically relinquishing your freedom of speech.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"]], "It's a slippery slope.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"]], "For example: saying\"hateful\" things about Islam becomes illegal.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"]], "Let's say you criticise Sharia laws (laws based off of the rules set out in Islam for those who are unaware).": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"]], "Next thing you know, your own government has full power to censor this\"hate\", and you are persecuted simply for disagreeing with the laws of an ally nation.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"]], "Governments have shown time and time again that they are more than happy to censor and abuse their peoples.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"], ["hasty generalization", "nothing"]], "Don't ever relinquish your freedoms willingly.": [["slippery slope", "appeal to fear"]]}
| 69
|
[] |
This movie was #1 at the box office last weekend! That means it must be really good!
|
[
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
50,
84
]
}
] |
[
"Ad populum: X = the movie is really good, because a lot of people have seen it"
] |
{"This movie was #1 at the box office last weekend!": [["nothing"]], "That means it must be really good!": [["ad populum"]]}
| 70
|
[] |
"If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment, then eventually the government will ban all cars; therefore, we should not ban Hummers."
|
[
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
1,
149
]
}
] |
[
"slippery slope: A = ban Hummers, Z = ban all cars"
] |
{"If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment, then eventually the government will ban all cars; therefore, we should not ban Hummers.\"": [["slippery slope"]]}
| 71
|
[] |
My roommate from Maine loves lobsters, therefore all people from Maine love lobsters.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
0,
85
]
}
] |
[
"hasty gen: P = people from Maine, S = one person from Main loves lobsters, C = all people from Maine love lobsters"
] |
{"My roommate from Maine loves lobsters, therefore all people from Maine love lobsters.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 72
|
[] |
TITLE: Cannabis is effective at reducing pain, and may be an alternative to opioids, with relatively minimal negative side effects, suggests new study of mobile app data, which found that the average user had a 3-point drop in pain suffering on a 0-10 point scale immediately following cannabis consumption. POST: I worked in an engineering factory for years and was never supplied a back belt so I now have a bad back and the only way I can get any sleep is to take 4 pain killers before bed or smoke one joint so I'll stick to what's natural rather than use so many painkillers my liver will be useless in a few years so cannabis for the win with me
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
314,
651
]
}
] |
[
"appeal to nature: X = cannabis, Y = opioids"
] |
{"TITLE: Cannabis is effective at reducing pain, and may be an alternative to opioids, with relatively minimal negative side effects, suggests new study of mobile app data, which found that the average user had a 3-point drop in pain suffering on a 0-10 point scale immediately following cannabis consumption.": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "I worked in an engineering factory for years and was never supplied a back belt so I now have a bad back and the only way I can get any sleep is to take 4 pain killers before bed or smoke one joint so I'll stick to what's natural rather than use so many painkillers my liver will be useless in a few years so cannabis for the win with me": [["appeal to nature"]]}
| 73
|
[] |
TITLE: Islamophobia has become normal. Our challenge now is dismantling it without doing more damage POST: There must be a firm basis to people hating Islam. There are many of us and we can't all be wrong. Am i afraid of Islam and what it can do to this country? You are damn right i am and with good reason. With my own two eyes i have seen how it destroys countries, Islamic countries none the less. People that support this religion blowing each other up. You are doing a dis-service to your country being"politically correct" in regard to Islam and your children will suffer because of it.
|
[
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
107,
205
]
},
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
263,
401
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
263,
401
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
402,
458
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
459,
593
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to fear (2): X=Being politically correct toward Islam, Y=Your Children will suffer",
"False Cause: A=Islam, B=Unstable Countries with conflict",
"First appeal to fear: X = if you support Islam, you will be blown up",
"Hasty generalization: S: Some islamic countries, P: Islamic-based countries, C: Islam destroys countries",
"ad populum: X = hate Islam"
] |
{"TITLE: Islamophobia has become normal.": [["nothing"]], "Our challenge now is dismantling it without doing more damage POST:": [["nothing"]], "There must be a firm basis to people hating Islam.": [["ad populum"]], "There are many of us and we can't all be wrong.": [["ad populum"]], "Am i afraid of Islam and what it can do to this country?": [["nothing"]], "You are damn right i am and with good reason.": [["false causality", "hasty generalization"]], "With my own two eyes i have seen how it destroys countries, Islamic countries none the less.": [["false causality", "hasty generalization"]], "People that support this religion blowing each other up.": [["appeal to fear"]], "You are doing a dis-service to your country being\"politically correct\" in regard to Islam and your children will suffer because of it.": [["appeal to fear"]]}
| 74
|
[] |
TITLE: California court backs state's right to ban foie gras POST: Good thing CA is able to focus on this hugely important issue and doesn't have massive homelessness plaguing it's cities or an ever increasing affordable housing crisis to worry about. This and banning plastic straws are the issues we need to solve to create a better life and society for people. I'm so glad CA is at the forefront of tackling our nation's most pressing issues. Keep being a beacon of hope CA and I'm sure other states will follow.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
67,
251
]
},
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
364,
515
]
}
] |
[
"appeal to ridicule: P1 = California, X = foie gras should be baned, X' = banning foie gras is a very pressing issue (sarcasm)",
"appeal to worse problem: S = California bans foie gras, B = dealing with homeless is more important"
] |
{"TITLE: California court backs state's right to ban foie gras POST:": [["nothing"]], "Good thing CA is able to focus on this hugely important issue and doesn't have massive homelessness plaguing it's cities or an ever increasing affordable housing crisis to worry about.": [["appeal to worse problems"]], "This and banning plastic straws are the issues we need to solve to create a better life and society for people.": [["nothing"]], "I'm so glad CA is at the forefront of tackling our nation's most pressing issues.": [["appeal to ridicule"]], "Keep being a beacon of hope CA and I'm sure other states will follow.": [["appeal to ridicule"]]}
| 75
|
[] |
OBAMA: Well, I want to thank Senator McCain and Bob for moderating. I think we all know America is going through tough times right now. The policies of the last eight years and -- and Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades has left us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And that's why the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we've seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
136,
320
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
321,
523
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
321,
523
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to fear: X=If you don't change policy, Y=You will have the same bad consequences (lose your job, lose your economy, ...)",
"Causal oversimplification: X: The policies of the last eight years and Washington's unwillingness to the tough problems for decades, Y: Left the US with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.",
"false dilemma: X = vote for McCain and USA will go down, Y = (implicit) vote for Obama and life will get better"
] |
{"OBAMA: Well, I want to thank Senator McCain and Bob for moderating.": [["nothing"]], "I think we all know America is going through tough times right now.": [["nothing"]], "The policies of the last eight years and -- and Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades has left us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.": [["causal oversimplification"]], "And that's why the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we've seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result.": [["appeal to fear", "false dilemma"]]}
| 76
|
[] |
TITLE: Abstinence vs. those who chose to have sex, a dilemma I'd like to understand! POST: I dont wait until marriage, because I'm not even sure if I want to get married. Used to care about how many people the girl sleeped with, now I really dont give a shit. Ive collectively had sex hundreds of times with my partners over the years, that doesn't make me better than someone who's had sex with more people, one time each. POST: Almost everyone in the world will look more favorably on a person who has had sex 100x times with one person versus having sex 1x each with 100 different people. As they should.
|
[
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
260,
423
]
},
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
260,
423
]
},
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
430,
591
]
}
] |
[
"False analogy: X: Had sex hundrerds of times with my partners, P: Does not make me better, Y: Someone who's had sex with more people, one time each.",
"Strawman: Person 1=OP, Y=Abstinence before mariage or not, Person 2=First poster, Y'=Having intercourse with many people or few people, Attack=Many relation with one person is the same as many one relation with different people",
"ad populum: X = having sex 100 times with one person is better than having sex 100 times with 100 different persons"
] |
{"TITLE: Abstinence vs.": [["nothing"]], "those who chose to have sex, a dilemma I'd like to understand!": [["nothing"]], "POST: I dont wait until marriage, because I'm not even sure if I want to get married.": [["nothing"]], "Used to care about how many people the girl sleeped with, now I really dont give a shit.": [["nothing"]], "Ive collectively had sex hundreds of times with my partners over the years, that doesn't make me better than someone who's had sex with more people, one time each.": [["false analogy", "straw man"]], "Almost everyone in the world will look more favorably on a person who has had sex 100x times with one person versus having sex 1x each with 100 different people.": [["ad populum"]], "As they should.": [["nothing"]]}
| 77
|
[] |
TITLE: 1930s IWW cartoon on the 4 hour work day POST: I work 6 ten hour days very frequently and don't get weekends off. In a way it's pretty insulting to see people angry with a 9-5 40 hour work week. I'd be so grateful to have that extra time to spend with my family and friends.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to pity",
"location": [
54,
281
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to worse problems",
"location": [
54,
281
]
},
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
54,
281
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to pity: X: Poster works for 60 hours, wishing to have more time with his family",
"Strawman: Person 1=OP, Y=4 hour workday (with decent living quality for all), Person 2=Poster, Y'=9-5 workweek, A=There are worse situation such as 10h/day",
"appeal to worse problem: S = people work 40 hours a week and complain, B = poster works 60hrs a week without complaining"
] |
{"TITLE: 1930s IWW cartoon on the 4 hour work day POST:": [["nothing"]], "I work 6 ten hour days very frequently and don't get weekends off.": [["appeal to worse problems", "appeal to pity", "straw man"]], "In a way it's pretty insulting to see people angry with a 9-5 40 hour work week.": [["appeal to worse problems", "appeal to pity", "straw man"]], "I'd be so grateful to have that extra time to spend with my family and friends.": [["appeal to worse problems", "appeal to pity", "straw man"]]}
| 78
|
[] |
A few students are misbehaving...therefore the whole class is bad.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
0,
66
]
}
] |
[
"hasty gen: P = students of the class, S = some students are misbehaving, C = all students in the class are bad"
] |
{"A few students are misbehaving...therefore the whole class is bad.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 79
|
[] |
TITLE: It seems that eliminating sugar is the single thing everyone can agree on POST: Not at all. Years ago was fats. Everyone blamed fats. Now is the same with sugar. It is not just one thing. You must have a balance diet and a helthy lifestyle to achieve the final goal of health (and enjoy the process) POST: Not to jump down your throat here but'balanced' is such a loaded term. It implies an existing framework of what the extremes of diet are or can be. For example, if we're speaking'natural' diet. Balance can't include any refined sugar at all because we weren't able to process it. Before the food pyramid came around the upper end of sugar consumption would have been much lower. So that middle ground'balance' would be much less as well.
|
[
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
384,
460
]
},
{
"label": "straw man",
"location": [
461,
691
]
}
] |
[
"first straw man: P1 = first poster, Y = need to have a balance diet, P2 = second poster, Y' = balanced is extreme",
"second straw man: P1 = first poster, Y = need to have a balance diet, P2 = second poster, Y' = balanced is necessarly natural"
] |
{"TITLE: It seems that eliminating sugar is the single thing everyone can agree on POST: Not at all.": [["nothing"]], "Years ago was fats.": [["nothing"]], "Everyone blamed fats.": [["nothing"]], "Now is the same with sugar.": [["nothing"]], "It is not just one thing.": [["nothing"]], "You must have a balance diet and a helthy lifestyle to achieve the final goal of health (and enjoy the process) POST: Not to jump down your throat here but'balanced' is such a loaded term.": [["nothing"]], "It implies an existing framework of what the extremes of diet are or can be.": [["straw man"]], "For example, if we're speaking'natural' diet.": [["straw man"]], "Balance can't include any refined sugar at all because we weren't able to process it.": [["straw man"]], "Before the food pyramid came around the upper end of sugar consumption would have been much lower.": [["straw man"]], "So that middle ground'balance' would be much less as well.": [["nothing"]]}
| 80
|
[] |
But irrespective of whether he thinks it is or not means less than fact that this country cannot morally and socially and economically accept an economy running out the clock on the 20th Century. We're treading water. We have families that are hurting. We have people who are unemployed. We have people with no property. We have an administration that is demolishing public housing in our inner cities and not providing anything else but more public housing. Their solution to the inner city is more -- excuse the expression but it's true,"socialism."
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to fear",
"location": [
0,
195
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to anger",
"location": [
196,
458
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
459,
551
]
},
{
"label": "guilt by association",
"location": [
459,
551
]
}
] |
[] |
{"But irrespective of whether he thinks it is or not means less than fact that this country cannot morally and socially and economically accept an economy running out the clock on the 20th Century.": [["appeal to fear"]], "We're treading water.": [["appeal to anger"]], "We have families that are hurting.": [["appeal to anger"]], "We have people who are unemployed.": [["appeal to anger"]], "We have people with no property.": [["appeal to anger"]], "We have an administration that is demolishing public housing in our inner cities and not providing anything else but more public housing.": [["appeal to anger"]], "Their solution to the inner city is more -- excuse the expression but it's true,\"socialism.\"": [["guilt by association", "false dilemma"]]}
| 81
|
[] |
Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain, and Jimi Hendrix were rock stars who died young. Therefore, if you become a rock star, don't expect to live a long life.
|
[
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
0,
150
]
}
] |
[
"hasty gen: P = rock stars, S = MJ, Kurt, and Jimi all died young, C = all rock stars die young"
] |
{"Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain, and Jimi Hendrix were rock stars who died young.": [["hasty generalization"]], "Therefore, if you become a rock star, don't expect to live a long life.": [["hasty generalization"]]}
| 82
|
[] |
Over 5 million Filipinos use our products. It's time to switch to our brand now!
|
[
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
0,
80
]
}
] |
[
"ad populum: X = our products are bought/good"
] |
{"Over 5 million Filipinos use our products.": [["ad populum"]], "It's time to switch to our brand now!": [["ad populum"]]}
| 83
|
[] |
MARVIN STONE: You suggest that we scrap the SALT II treaty already negotiated, and intensify the build-up of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty - one more favorable to us. President Carter, on the other hand, says he will again try to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it's the best we can hope to get. Now, both of you cannot be right. Will you tell us why you think you are? RONALD REAGAN: Yes. I think I'm right because I believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong America, and a strong economy. And then, as we build up our national security, to restore our margin of safety, we at the same time try to restrain the Soviet build-up, which has been going forward at a rapid pace, and for quite some time. October 28, 1980 Cleveland, Ohio What logical fallacy did Reagan's response illustrate the use of?
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to positive emotion",
"location": [
460,
582
]
},
{
"label": "to clean",
"location": [
791,
890
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to positive emotion: A=We must have a strong America (Flag waving, pride)"
] |
{"MARVIN STONE: You suggest that we scrap the SALT II treaty already negotiated, and intensify the build-up of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty - one more favorable to us.": [["nothing"]], "President Carter, on the other hand, says he will again try to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it's the best we can hope to get.": [["nothing"]], "Now, both of you cannot be right.": [["nothing"]], "Will you tell us why you think you are?": [["nothing"]], "RONALD REAGAN: Yes.": [["nothing"]], "I think I'm right because I believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong America, and a strong economy.": [["appeal to positive emotion"]], "And then, as we build up our national security, to restore our margin of safety, we at the same time try to restrain the Soviet build-up, which has been going forward at a rapid pace, and for quite some time": [["nothing"]]}
| 84
|
[] |
TITLE: The bible is not Clear POST: The bible is not Clear it's clear enough so that there are 2.18 billion Christians A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion. <URL>
|
[
{
"label": "to clean",
"location": [
36,
59
]
},
{
"label": "ad populum",
"location": [
59,
118
]
}
] |
[
"TODO: add a dot before \"A comprehensive\"",
"ad populum: X = the bible is clear because billions are believers"
] |
{"TITLE: The bible is not Clear POST:": [["nothing"]], "it's clear enough so that there are 2.18 billion Christians": [["ad populum"]], "A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion.": [["nothing"]], "<URL>\n": [["nothing"]]}
| 85
|
[] |
I have been in charge of this reinventing government streamlining project that's reduced the size of government by more than 300,000 people in the last several years. And the budget plan that I've put out, according to the"Los Angeles Times" again, the way these things are typically measured as a percentage of the GDP, will bring government spending down to the lowest level in 50 years. So I want to proceed carefully to cover more people.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to (false) authority",
"location": [
167,
442
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to authority: P1 = LA Times, Y = the speaker plan is good"
] |
{"I have been in charge of this reinventing government streamlining project that's reduced the size of government by more than 300,000 people in the last several years.": [["nothing"]], "And the budget plan that I've put out, according to the\"Los Angeles Times\" again, the way these things are typically measured as a percentage of the GDP, will bring government spending down to the lowest level in 50 years.": [["appeal to (false) authority"]], "So I want to proceed carefully to cover more people.": [["appeal to (false) authority"]]}
| 86
|
[] |
TITLE: What distinguishes"food animals" from"not food animals"? POST: Animals aren't food for us. If you wouldn't eat a dog or cat, don't eat a cow or chicken. Even if you would eat a dog or cat, don't. POST: Animals are food for other animals, why they wouldn't be food for humans?
|
[
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
70,
202
]
},
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
70,
202
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to nature",
"location": [
209,
282
]
},
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
209,
282
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to nature: X: Animals are food for other animals, Y: Animals are also food for humans",
"False Analogy (2): X=Human, Y=Animals, P=Some eat other animals, (But Human have more choice in term of diet, and not a biological necessity)",
"First false analogy: X = pets, Y = other animals, P = pets are not eaten",
"false dilemma: X = eat all animals, Y = eat no animals"
] |
{"TITLE: What distinguishes\"food animals\" from\"not food animals\"?": [["nothing"]], "POST:": [["nothing"]], "Animals aren't food for us.": [["false analogy", "false dilemma"]], "If you wouldn't eat a dog or cat, don't eat a cow or chicken.": [["false analogy", "false dilemma"]], "Even if you would eat a dog or cat, don't.": [["false analogy", "false dilemma"]], "Animals are food for other animals, why they wouldn't be food for humans?": [["appeal to nature", "false analogy"]]}
| 87
|
[] |
The president of Honduras is a good leader because he is a leader of the country.
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
81
]
}
] |
[
"circular reasoning: X = the president is a good leader, Y = he is the leader of Honduras"
] |
{"The president of Honduras is a good leader because he is a leader of the country.": [["circular reasoning"]]}
| 88
|
[] |
And he cut defense an extra $60 billion, threw a lot of people out of work. He talks about a smaller government. There are actually more people in government except for people in defense related jobs. They're gone. The government's bigger than it was when President Kennedy was around, even though he says it's not. In addition, Republican Congress cut $53 billion.
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[
"TODO: replace that example ?"
] |
{"And he cut defense an extra $60 billion, threw a lot of people out of work.": [["nothing"]], "He talks about a smaller government.": [["nothing"]], "There are actually more people in government except for people in defense related jobs.": [["nothing"]], "They're gone.": [["nothing"]], "The government's bigger than it was when President Kennedy was around, even though he says it's not.": [["nothing"]], "In addition, Republican Congress cut $53 billion.": [["nothing"]]}
| 89
|
[] |
Families communicate less and less in the past forty years since feminism became mainstream. Feminism is to blame for this deterioration in the family.
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
151
]
}
] |
[
"A=Feminism gain popularity in the past 40 years, B=Families communicate less since 40 years,"
] |
{"Families communicate less and less in the past forty years since feminism became mainstream.": [["false causality"]], "Feminism is to blame for this deterioration in the family.": [["false causality"]]}
| 90
|
[] |
CLINTON: Our military is the strongest military in the world. It is the strongest, best prepared, best equipped it has ever been. There is very little difference in the budget that I proposed and the Republican budget over the next six-year period.
|
[
{
"label": "appeal to positive emotion",
"location": [
9,
129
]
}
] |
[
"appeal to positive emotion: A = USA army is the greatest"
] |
{"Our military is the strongest military in the world.": [["appeal to positive emotion"]], "It is the strongest, best prepared, best equipped it has ever been.": [["appeal to positive emotion"]], "There is very little difference in the budget that I proposed and the Republican budget over the next six-year period.": [["nothing"]]}
| 91
|
[] |
Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
|
[
{
"label": "false analogy",
"location": [
0,
62
]
}
] |
[
"false analogy: Y = murder, X = abortion, P = morally wrong"
] |
{"Murder is morally wrong.": [["false analogy"]], "Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.": [["false analogy"]]}
| 92
|
[] |
Violent video games cause teens to be violent, because violent teens play violent video games.
|
[
{
"label": "circular reasoning",
"location": [
0,
94
]
},
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
0,
94
]
}
] |
[
"Circular reasoning: X: Violent video games, Y: Violent teens",
"False Causality: A=Violent video game, B=Violent teens"
] |
{"Violent video games cause teens to be violent, because violent teens play violent video games.": [["false causality", "circular reasoning"]]}
| 93
|
[] |
These test results are clearly wrong, and it must be either because the client was malingering or because I bungled the test administration. Taking another look at the test manual, I see now that I bungled the test administration. Therefore the client was not malingering.
|
[
{
"label": "false dilemma",
"location": [
0,
140
]
}
] |
[
"The test could be for another disease, the patient could be malingering AND the adminstration bungled, etc.",
"false dilemma: X = patient malingering, Y = bungled administration"
] |
{"These test results are clearly wrong, and it must be either because the client was malingering or because I bungled the test administration.": [["false dilemma"]], "Taking another look at the test manual, I see now that I bungled the test administration.": [["nothing"]], "Therefore the client was not malingering.": [["nothing"]]}
| 94
|
[] |
TITLE: Trump's plan to improve healthcare, that everyone said wouldn't work, is already working POST: Is that why my prescriptions and premiums keep going up massively? hm. Trump hasn't done shit to improve healthcare, he has done the complete opposite.
|
[
{
"label": "Appeal to Ridicule",
"location": [
102,
168
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
102,
168
]
},
{
"label": "appeal to anger",
"location": [
173,
253
]
}
] |
[
"Appeal to anger: A: Trump has done anything to improve the healthcare, he did the opposite",
"Appeal to ridicule: Person 1=OP, X=Healthcare improved, Person 2=Poster, X'=Healthcare improved while premiums keep going up",
"hasty gen: P = all seek persons, S = the poster case (increased prices of his meds), C = Trump didn't improve healthcare"
] |
{"TITLE: Trump's plan to improve healthcare, that everyone said wouldn't work, is already working POST:": [["nothing"]], "Is that why my prescriptions and premiums keep going up massively?": [["hasty generalization", "appeal to ridicule"]], "Trump hasn't done shit to improve healthcare, he has done the complete opposite.": [["appeal to anger"]]}
| 95
|
[] |
TITLE: This though... POST: So freaking true...I recently got a $100k+ job without a college degree, before my 30th birthday. I did it because I worked my ass off and learned a skill in the military. It's not that hard you just got to do the best you can.
|
[
{
"label": "causal oversimplification",
"location": [
126,
255
]
},
{
"label": "hasty generalization",
"location": [
126,
255
]
}
] |
[
"Causal oversimplification: X: He worked hard in the miliatry, Y: He got a $100k+ job without a degree",
"hasty gen: P = all workers, S = the speaker that worked very hard suceeded, C = working very hard is sufficient to succeed"
] |
{"TITLE: This though...": [["nothing"]], "POST: So freaking true...I recently got a $100k+ job without a college degree, before my 30th birthday.": [["nothing"]], "I did it because I worked my ass off and learned a skill in the military.": [["causal oversimplification", "hasty generalization"]], "It's not that hard you just got to do the best you can.": [["causal oversimplification", "hasty generalization"]]}
| 96
|
[] |
TITLE: Workers that don't immediately respond to customers should be fired. POST: >I've never been satisfied with any businesses anywhere. If if smells like shit where ever you go, check your shoe. Or put another way If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
|
[
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[] |
{"TITLE: Workers that don't immediately respond to customers should be fired.": [["nothing"]], "POST: >I've never been satisfied with any businesses anywhere.": [["nothing"]], "If if smells like shit where ever you go, check your shoe.": [["nothing"]], "Or put another way If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole.": [["nothing"]], "If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.": [["nothing"]]}
| 97
|
[] |
For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a nail."For Want of a Nail," medieval proverb
|
[
{
"label": "slippery slope",
"location": [
0,
200
]
}
] |
[
"Slippery Slope: A: For want of a nail the shoe was lost, B: For want of a shoe the horse was lost C: For want of a horse the rider was lost, D: For want of a rider the battle was lost, E: For want of a battle Z: The kingdom that was lost"
] |
{"For want of a nail the shoe was lost.": [["slippery slope"]], "For want of a shoe the horse was lost.": [["slippery slope"]], "For want of a horse the rider was lost.": [["slippery slope"]], "For want of a rider the battle was lost.": [["slippery slope"]], "For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.": [["slippery slope"]], "And all for the want of a nail.\"For Want of a Nail,\" medieval proverb\n": [["nothing"]]}
| 98
|
[] |
"I bought a ticket to win a new car at the mall, since I have never won anything like that in the past."
|
[
{
"label": "false causality",
"location": [
1,
103
]
},
{
"label": "no_fallacy",
"location": [
0,
0
]
}
] |
[
"false causality: A = I never won, B = I'll won"
] |
{"I bought a ticket to win a new car at the mall, since I have never won anything like that in the past.": [["false causality", "nothing"]]}
| 99
|
[] |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
Dataset Card for MAFALDA-fallacies
This is a unified fallacy classification dataset originally publishde in github and NAACL 2024.
Citation [optional]
MAFALDA: A Benchmark and Comprehensive Study of Fallacy Detection and Classification (Helwe et al., NAACL 2024)
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{helwe-etal-2024-mafalda,
title = "{MAFALDA}: A Benchmark and Comprehensive Study of Fallacy Detection and Classification",
author = "Helwe, Chadi and
Calamai, Tom and
Paris, Pierre-Henri and
Clavel, Chlo{\'e} and
Suchanek, Fabian",
editor = "Duh, Kevin and
Gomez, Helena and
Bethard, Steven",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = jun,
year = "2024",
address = "Mexico City, Mexico",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.270/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.270",
pages = "4810--4845",
abstract = "We introduce MAFALDA, a benchmark for fallacy classification that merges and unites previous fallacy datasets. It comes with a taxonomy that aligns, refines, and unifies existing classifications of fallacies. We further provide a manual annotation of a part of the dataset together with manual explanations for each annotation. We propose a new annotation scheme tailored for subjective NLP tasks, and a new evaluation method designed to handle subjectivity. We then evaluate several language models under a zero-shot learning setting and human performances on MAFALDA to assess their capability to detect and classify fallacies."
}
- Downloads last month
- 109