Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread.

1. Ad Hominem

Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.

Quote:

“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

Formal Logic:

  (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)
  Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.

2. Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.

Quote:

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

Formal Logic:

  (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.

3. Motte and Bailey

Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.

Quote:

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

Formal Logic:

  Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”
  You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”
  Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”
  Then argue:
  ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P

It's a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!

4. Fallacy Fallacy

Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.

Quote:

“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’...”

Formal Logic:

  (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)
  Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).

5. Begging the Question

Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.

Quote (from your rebuttal):

“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”

Formal Logic:

  (You assume: ¬P)
  Then argue: ¬P
  \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]

You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.

6. Poisoning the Well

Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.

Quote:

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

Formal Logic:

  Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)

This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.

edit: fixing formatting