Make me remember a conversation a guy claim he could easily went 2000 miles in one day, another response even at 70mph it would take more than a day, the guy just reply SOURCE? like some kind of trained reaction
Funnily enough, the guy refusing to give their bank details IS presenting poor arguments. Of course, this is assuming that both parties have consented to enter a debate. If this was indeed a debate, it would kinda delve into a debate over the objectivity/subjectivity of morality as a whole.
this is what arguing with anyone on the internet feels like
Strawman fallacy.
Phallacy fallacy. Aka: you're wrong, suck my dick
Survivalship bias
Are you gaslighting me?!
"It's ILLEGAL to steal peoples money"
"source?"
Make me remember a conversation a guy claim he could easily went 2000 miles in one day, another response even at 70mph it would take more than a day, the guy just reply SOURCE? like some kind of trained reaction
“Clause two of the anti robber 1898 act”
“Im not reading that”
(I have no understanding of the law)
I don't think the second one is whataboutism?
Misidentifying the fallacy makes it all the more realistic.
Yeah it's more of an imagineism
Just say "no"
God, what an idiot. He’s not stealing your bank details, he’s politely asking for them.
The majority of hacking is this right here.
Funnily enough, the guy refusing to give their bank details IS presenting poor arguments. Of course, this is assuming that both parties have consented to enter a debate. If this was indeed a debate, it would kinda delve into a debate over the objectivity/subjectivity of morality as a whole.
"What are your bank details?"
"... (No response)"
🔁 Fallacist's Fallacy