That would only be a straw man if that is an oversimplification of the issue (not sure how “drained half a lake” is not a distortion/oversimplification, but I’m guessing you read that with blinders on). My following comment in this thread clearly shows that is not the case, so I’ll take what you say as ad hominem.
If you really want to get into fallacies though, sure he’s the others you committed:
The phrase “the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish” implies there is only one real issue and that I’m ignoring it. This frames the debate as a binary: either you care about vanishing lakes or you’re making pathetic arguments. That’s a false dilemma.
Phrases like “a lake could just vanish” and “global warming isn’t getting easier” are designed to evoke alarm and urgency without connecting them logically to the original point. That’s appeal to emotion.
Your comment pivots from the original topic (water usage comparisons) to a different issue: “permitting… which is the actual issue”. That’s a red herring.
Motte and Bailey also as the whole “Well, they still use a lot and many are unpermitted” (that’s a motte: a hard-to-dispute claim). Those shifts are used be people without a point to appear victorious without defending the original position.
You‘re looking way too deep into a comment that incapsulates multiple facets of the issue just fine to diverge from your problematic „but it‘s not as bad as this worst misuse of water you‘ve ever heard of“ comparison. Your claim it‘s hard to verify is laughable as is your first semester social studies level of analyzing an argument. I guess one way of winning a debate is to just bore everyone to death so bravo.
That would only be a straw man if that is an oversimplification of the issue (not sure how “drained half a lake” is not a distortion/oversimplification, but I’m guessing you read that with blinders on). My following comment in this thread clearly shows that is not the case, so I’ll take what you say as ad hominem.
If you really want to get into fallacies though, sure he’s the others you committed:
The phrase “the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish” implies there is only one real issue and that I’m ignoring it. This frames the debate as a binary: either you care about vanishing lakes or you’re making pathetic arguments. That’s a false dilemma.
Phrases like “a lake could just vanish” and “global warming isn’t getting easier” are designed to evoke alarm and urgency without connecting them logically to the original point. That’s appeal to emotion.
Your comment pivots from the original topic (water usage comparisons) to a different issue: “permitting… which is the actual issue”. That’s a red herring.
Motte and Bailey also as the whole “Well, they still use a lot and many are unpermitted” (that’s a motte: a hard-to-dispute claim). Those shifts are used be people without a point to appear victorious without defending the original position.
You‘re looking way too deep into a comment that incapsulates multiple facets of the issue just fine to diverge from your problematic „but it‘s not as bad as this worst misuse of water you‘ve ever heard of“ comparison. Your claim it‘s hard to verify is laughable as is your first semester social studies level of analyzing an argument. I guess one way of winning a debate is to just bore everyone to death so bravo.
Me: States facts based on USDA published data. Internet Nobody:
Ad hominem means you have no actual point that can stand against what I said. So, yes, I did win lol.