AHHHH, WHAT IS THIS FALLACY?!?

[Madotsuki24]

I hope that this fallacy isn't an obvious one and that I've had a fool of myself, but what would this fallacy be?

Example: Frisk can defeat Asriel Dreemurr on their own and Ness couldn't defeat Giygas on his own. Asriel Dreemurr is a higher tier than Giygas, so if Frisk can beat Asriel Dreemurr and Ness can't beat Giygas, that means Frisk can beat Ness.

 

[Schnee_One]

Doesn't seem fallacious to me

Its arguably an ABC fallacy but its still correct so....Not really

 

[Madotsuki24]

Doesn't seem fallacious to me
Its arguably an ABC fallacy but its still correct so....Not really

Not true all of the time, because Flash once beat Superman and Superman beat Doctor Manhattan, but Flash lost against Doctor Manhattan, so it's not all decided on that.

 

[DarkGrath]

Well, there is some leeway when it comes to whether the victory was based on things like AP, specific hax or specific resistances. Also, that's not really a great example, since DC is unbearably inconsistent.

 

[Schnee_One]

That's kinda why I said it was an ABC fallacy, but you were correct that Frisk beats Ness. So no not really

Also DC is a terrible example with how inconsistent it is, Flash beat Dr Manhattan twice and Supes got one shotted multiple times by him and we don't scale either of them to Manhattan anyway.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Frisk cant really beat Ness

Its most likely an incon or Ness just incaps

 

[Madotsuki24]

Frisk cant really beat Ness
Its most likely an incon or Ness just incaps

Yeah, that's the thing. It's not all decided on that.

It's like saying that if Charizard can beat Venusaur and Venusaur can beat Blastoise, that means Charizard can beat Blastoise.

 

[Madotsuki24]

And yeah, sorry for using an inconsistent source and Pokémon's probably even more inconsistent...

Sure, you could defeat a multiverse level being with existence erasure, but if you fight a universe level being with resistence to existence erasure, you could lose against them if you don't have anything else that you can defeat them with.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

This would be a form of A > B > C. Although a bit indirect. So basically what it's doing is:

Since A > B and B > C then since D < C then D < A. Which doesn't take into account how exactly they won versus each other not to mention that B and C are being compared tier wise not capability wise. But yeah it doesn't take into account compatibility and stuff. So it should still be the A>B>C fallacy. As for how true it is idk, am not knowledgeable on either of these characters.

 

[Madotsuki24]

This would be a form of A > B > C. Although a bit indirect. So basically what it's doing is:
Since A > B and B > C then since D < C then D < A. Which doesn't take into account how exactly they won versus each other not to mention that B and C are being compared tier wise not capability wise. But yeah it doesn't take into account compatibility and stuff. So it should still be the A>B>C fallacy. As for how true it is idk, am not knowledgeable on either of these characters.

Oh! Thanks for answering that question really well! >W<

I don't see the ABC Fallacy on the Fallacy page, maybe it should be added?

 

[Blahblah9755]

ABC Fallacy isn't an official fallacy, it's the false premise or false analogy fallacy applied to the transitive property.

For false premise: someone is saying A is stronger than B, B is stronger than C, so A is stronger than C, therefore A beats C, which is a false premise because other factors influence who beats who than strength.

For false analogy: someone is saying, A>B>C because A beat B and B beat C, therefore A>C and should beat C. This is false analogy because they're treating the characters as analogous to numbers to apply the transitive property, but characters abilities are more than just numbers and therefore can't be treated as analogous to them.

 

[Madotsuki24]

I couldn't have hoped for a better answer, thank chu so much!!!! >W<

You sound really smart and I would really like seeing you answer more questions like these and do debates and prehaps help me with them!!!! >W<

 

[Firephoenixearl]

We just call it "A>B>C logic". It doesn't need to be a fallacy to be straight up wrong reasoning.