Example1013

@hailinel: Well you don't understand sarcasm, so it's understandable that you'd feel that way.

@hailinel: You're right. Honestly I take at least 30% of the blame for myself, as I am the one who erroneously engaged the content of a structurally flawed argument.

Now you're reaching borderline denial. I've told you 3 times already. You haven't defined what you mean by pop star despite using that phrase a significant number of times. There, I pointed out the most fallacious part of your argument, namely its ambiguity.

Now let's go over the rest of the fallacies you committed, since apparently despite the fact that you're not 10 and supposedly have a grasp on logic, you can't figure them out for yourself.

Tu quoque. Instead of responding to my criticisms with your arguments, you simply criticized mine.

Bandwagon. You use the opinion of millions of miku fans as a pillar of support for your argument, however popular opinion is not a valid means of support for an argument, unless that argument is about popular opinion. For instance, let's use a hypothetical where we're arguing whether or not astrology is real. About 100 million people believe horoscopes are accurate and astrology is real. According to you and @demoskinos, this is enough of a reason to justify saying that astrology is real. However, that is not the case. Astrology is either real or not real regardless of whether or not people believe in it, which is why it's a logical fallacy.

Burden of proof. You have attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me. However I am not the one making an assertion, you are. And since you're the one making an assertion, the burden of proof is on you to adequately support it.

If you wish to clear up these structural flaws, I'm sure we can have a productive discussion.

You don't get it. The content of your posts does not matter because the structure is fallacious. I'm sorry I confused you about this, I should have never engaged the content because now you're confused into thinking that you actually have a defensible position, when in fact your posts are logically invalid and not worth discussing. Next time I will be more clear about pointing out the fallacies you commit so you can be more capable of structuring a valid argument. In the meantime I'd suggest you do some learning about logic and use this as a reminder of what not to do. Chiefly, your biggest sin is your total commitment to defending and maintaining overly ambiguous arguments. I almost wonder if you don't do so on purpose simply so that you can never be proven wrong, because this is hardly the first time I've seen you do it.

@hailinel: The central premise of my argument is that Miku does not fit the definition of a pop star, because miku is not a musician/performer of pop music. Miku cannot be a musician/performer of pop music because Miku lacks the agency to choose whether or not to be a musician/performer, making Miku a puppet to showcase the work of actual artists.

I'm not going to bother going over and trying to decipher your argument. You've used the phrase "pop star" probably 50 times over the course of this thread, and yet despite now reading it twice, I still don't know what you mean by it. This makes your argument fallacious because it is overly ambiguous. If you don't clearly define your terms, then no one can argue for or against them, since they don't even know how to use them, which makes debate in general impossible. I sound condescending because as far as I can tell this is a concept that you simply do not grasp, and at this point I can't think of any other way to get you to use valid reasoning other than to make you feel stupid for not doing so. Would you be willing to do so if I asked nicely?

Actually your definition is central, as my premise is based off my definition of a pop star. What you've done by not clearly defining the terms you're using is create a situation in which you can never be adequately proven wrong, because I don't even know what the rules are. Ambiguity is a logical fallacy, and by committing it you remove all value from your posts. This is logic 101. Some of my posts are a bit salty because I committed to arguing against a fallacious position, which is a sisyphean task. I have no problem having a well-reasoned debate on this. It's up to you to do your part and provide a valid argument. I provided a valid argument, for which you have provided no counterpoint, and simply said "nuh uh".

If you want to argue against my definition of a pop star, explain why my definition is wrong, and provide your own and explain why it's right. The definition listed on Wikipedia in fact closely mirrors my own (A pop star is a celebrity who is a musician associated with pop music; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popstar_(disambiguation)). Longman and Urban Dictionary also agree. The Wikipedia article on pop music doesn't specifically define the phrase, but does use it in a manner fitting with my definition. If you'd like to explain on what basis I'm incorrect with my definition of pop star, I'd have no problem reading it. If you'd like to explain on what basis yours is correct, I'd also have no problem reading it. So far you have failed to do either, and it's pointless to continue until you do.

@hailinel: I gave my definition of a pop star, you have thus far failed to do so. Failure to accurately define ambiguous terms creates a fallacious argument. Disputing a fallacious argument is pointless because the argument is not logically valid, and thus does not merit consideration.

@sinusoidal: Honestly I'm a little annoyed because I committed one of my cardinal sins on the internet, namely arguing with a fallacious post. But at this point I might as well see it to its conclusion.

@hailinel: Alright, I've got a solution. Why don't you give me your definition of the phrase "pop star" and we cut out all this stupid bullshit. You can win any argument from your point of view when you specifically leave your posts overly ambiguous.

@hailinel: I was talking about the "people pay to see Miku" part. That has nothing to do with anything. People pay to see movies, does that make projectors pop stars too?