The I decided to choose is tu quoque fallacy, also known as the “you too” fallacy, occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument is also guilty of the same thing. For example, if someone says smoking is bad for your health and the other person responds with, “Well, you eat unhealthy food, so you’re no better.” This fallacy is flawed because it doesn’t address the original argument.The I decided to choose is tu quoque fallacy, also known as the “you too” fallacy, occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument is also guilty of the same thing. For example, if someone says smoking is bad for your health and the other person responds with, “Well, you eat unhealthy food, so you’re no better.” This fallacy is flawed because it doesn’t address the original argument.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 100 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

One thought on “The I decided to choose is tu quoque fallacy, also known as the “you too” fallacy, occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument is also guilty of the same thing. For example, if someone says smoking is bad for your health and the other person responds with, “Well, you eat unhealthy food, so you’re no better.” This fallacy is flawed because it doesn’t address the original argument.The I decided to choose is tu quoque fallacy, also known as the “you too” fallacy, occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument is also guilty of the same thing. For example, if someone says smoking is bad for your health and the other person responds with, “Well, you eat unhealthy food, so you’re no better.” This fallacy is flawed because it doesn’t address the original argument.”