The Fallacy Challenge

Thanks Pro. I. Preface I am already regretting signing up to 4 rounds of torture, haha. I will make my positive arguments in this round and save most of my rebuttals for R3. A1. I have a grounding in basic logic Most of my arguments in my debates follow deductively, which demonstrates my experience with these types of debates, if one checks through my debate record on this account they will find a vanishingly small number of logical fallacies committed on my behalf.[1] A good example is in my two debates debate with Wylted, which was entirely deductive, and Wylted despite being a highly experienced debater failed to call a single logical fallacy on my part in any of these arguments.[2,3] Another good example is my debate with Toviyah, a debater who uses enormous amounts of formal logic in his debates, and yet he failed to call out a single logical fallacy in our debate. [4] This is before we even consider if the logical fallacy claims are valid or not! If I consistently avoid committing logical fallacies in my previous debates then we have good reason to expect inductively that I will largely avoid them in this debate. To formalize: P1. I will probably not make any logical fallacies in any debate P2. This is a debate P3. This is all that is known on the matter C. I will probably not make any logical fallacies in this debate I have already defended P1, and P2 is prima facie true. P3 is an assumption which also seems reasonable, there is nothing that seems apparent to affect the likelihood of me making additional fallacies given the current information. If Pro can provide reasons to doubt the significance of P3, then this argument is of course, unsound. A2. Pro is unlikely to spot fallacies even if they were made By analysing Pro’s 3 most recent debate’s opening rounds, it is clear he has missed many logical fallacies made by his opponent, such as the fallacy of ‘Bare Assertion’ in his debate with Brant.Merrel [5], and also in YYW’s opening arguments on Justin Beiber with the following argument: “JB has inflicted his horrible music on us, and apparently has no intention of stopping. This is awful, and I don't contest that a thorough round of public shaming and humiliation is in order -especially for what he said about Bill Clinton. “[6] With absolutely no logical or evidential justification given, yet my distinguished opponent missed this elementary error in his rebuttals. A3. Reducio ad hitlerum Interestingly reducio ad hitlerum is not listed on www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com so I will use it! P1. Pro’s false arguments are similar to Hitler’s propaganda P2. Hitler’s propaganda loses C. Pro’s arguments appear to lose To support P1, Pro cites numerous prima facie irrelevancies and falsities in his opening round that appear to only be meaningful to people who already believe the conclusion, which is the definition of propaganda, and P2 is the definition of redicio ad hitlerum. Conclusion Pro’s arguments have been debunked, and I would be interested to see where my fallacies are. References [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://www.debate.org... [6] http://www.debate.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...