SkipCaptcha
110
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − +
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading Special pleading is a form of moving the goalposts. Since the Christian in the hypothetical debate scenario is not moving the goalposts, he is not special pleading.
:'''Christian''': Everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause. And the cause of the universe, we call "God".
:'''Christian''': Everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause. And the cause of the universe, we call "God".
:'''Atheist''': That's special pleading.
:'''Atheist''': That's special pleading.
The Christian may or may not be guilty of special pleading; but the atheist is definitely guilty of the name-a-fallacy fallacy, because they have made no effort to actually engage with the Christian's argument, or explain how it constitutes special pleading (if it in fact does). Knowledge of logical fallacies can be a useful tool, but they are not magical talismans which will defeat any argument simply by being mentioned; and yet, practitioners of the name-a-fallacy seem to think that they are exactly that.
The Christian is not guilty of special pleading; but the atheist is definitely guilty of the name-a-fallacy fallacy, because they have made no effort to actually engage with the Christian's argument, or explain how it constitutes special pleading (which it doesn't). Knowledge of logical fallacies can be a useful tool, but they are not magical talismans which will defeat any argument simply by being mentioned; and yet, practitioners of the name-a-fallacy seem to think that they are exactly that.
In order to legitimately accuse your opponent of a logical fallacy, there are three necessary elements:
In order to legitimately accuse your opponent of a logical fallacy, there are three necessary elements: