1

If you are really not knowledgeable in the field and outside of the basic verifications like googling the person's name, your best bet is to see how consensual their position is in the field. The cliche of the genius scientist who is right against every one else is mostly just a cliche. Of course every great discoverer who have had a correct hypothesis ...


1

It's not a logical fallacy, but a dishonest debating tactic, or "informal fallacy". 2 counters: Ask of your opponent that they apply the same standard of proof to their own claim. Usually they won't be able to. Depending on the situation, explain how what they're asking for is unrealistic. An informal discussion between friends can't be held to ...


1

If it's good because the person suffers more severe consequences if the state goes after him, logically it would be even better for the state to torture the insulter to death, because that's more severe yet. "More satisfying" is a horrifically unjust criterion for the punishment of an action. It would also be logical to argue that your friend ...


1

I would draw the line between context and intention. If your context is e.g. political candidacy, then "but you're ugly" is a valid contextual argument: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/201607/voting-our-eyes-attractive-candidates-get-more-votes If you're throwing an insult that has no context to support it as reasonable, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible