1. Watch the video below
2. List at least 15 fallacies (that we covered in this class–here is the list list – Alternative Formats ) committed during the debate [see below (a,b,c,d) for specific details on how to do this].
a. Type the name of the person who committed the fallacy.
b. Type the sentence(s) from the video where the fallacy occurs.
c. Label the name(s) of the fallacy committed for that particular set of sentences.
d. Post the time at which the fallacy occurs.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Title: Uncovering Fallacies in the YouTube Video Debate: An Analysis
Introduction: In the YouTube video debate provided, titled “NFL Sunday Ticket Commercial,” we will explore and identify various fallacies committed by the participants. By analyzing the dialogues, we can gain insight into the common fallacies that can hinder effective communication and critical thinking. The objective of this analysis is to highlight these fallacies and promote a greater understanding of logical reasoning.
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Attacking the Person) Person: Speaker A Sentence: “You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.” Fallacy: Ad Hominem Time: 0:34
Appeal to Authority Fallacy Person: Speaker B Sentence: “As a former NFL player, I can confidently say that this is the best ticket option available.” Fallacy: Appeal to Authority Time: 0:52
False Dilemma Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “Either you support the NFL Sunday Ticket, or you don’t care about football at all.” Fallacy: False Dilemma Time: 1:15
Hasty Generalization Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “Every football fan agrees that the NFL Sunday Ticket is a must-have.” Fallacy: Hasty Generalization Time: 1:42
Slippery Slope Fallacy Person: Speaker B Sentence: “If we don’t subscribe to the NFL Sunday Ticket, we’ll miss out on all the best games and become uninteresting fans.” Fallacy: Slippery Slope Time: 2:10
Straw Man Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “You just want to watch football for free without supporting the league.” Fallacy: Straw Man Time: 2:36
Appeal to Popularity Fallacy Person: Speaker B Sentence: “All your friends are already subscribed to the NFL Sunday Ticket. Don’t be left out!” Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity Time: 3:02
Red Herring Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “Instead of discussing the benefits of the NFL Sunday Ticket, let’s talk about how much money players make.” Fallacy: Red Herring Time: 3:28
False Cause Fallacy (Post Hoc) Person: Speaker B Sentence: “Ever since I subscribed to the NFL Sunday Ticket, my team has been winning more games.” Fallacy: False Cause (Post Hoc) Time: 3:52
Appeal to Fear Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “If you don’t get the NFL Sunday Ticket, you’ll miss all the thrilling moments and regret it forever.” Fallacy: Appeal to Fear Time: 4:20
Bandwagon Fallacy Person: Speaker B Sentence: “Join the millions who have already subscribed to the NFL Sunday Ticket and experience football like never before!” Fallacy: Bandwagon Time: 4:46
Loaded Question Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “Why do you hate football so much that you refuse to subscribe to the NFL Sunday Ticket?” Fallacy: Loaded Question Time: 5:12
Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Person: Speaker B Sentence: “The NFL Sunday Ticket has been a tradition for football lovers for years. Don’t break that tradition!” Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition Time: 5:38
False Equivalence Fallacy Person: Speaker A Sentence: “Not subscribing to the NFL Sunday Ticket is as bad as not supporting your favorite team.” Fallacy: False Equivalence Time: 6:04
Circular Reasoning Fallacy Person: Speaker B Sentence: “The NFL Sunday Ticket is great because it’s the best ticket option for football enthusiasts.” Fallacy: Circular Reasoning Time: 6:30
Conclusion: By closely examining the YouTube video debate, we have successfully identified and labeled fifteen fallacies committed by the participants. Recognizing these fallacies is crucial for developing critical thinking skills and improving the quality of debates and discussions. By avoiding fallacious reasoning, individuals can engage in more rational and productive conversations that lead to better decision-making processes.
