Hi there, I was just wondering if there was a specific name to this logical fallacy. I almost think it's circular reasoning but I'm not entirely sure. Here are some examples:

A: Colleges and education should be free

B: Colleges and education shouldn't be free because free colleges don't educate the students

A: How do you know?

B: Because the students at free colleges will say that free education is good and an educated person would say that free education is bad



Evolutionist: Evolution exists and makes humans and other species become more and more advanced and intelligent every day

Creationist: No, evolution doesn't exist because if it did and it truly made people people more intelligent, then there wouldn't be evolutionists because only creationists are intelligent



Of course these examples are exaggerations but there are many arguments I've heard like this and I know they're fallacious but don't know how to explain how

What a fun question. For the second one, I would say it is the "burden of proof" fallacy. If a person makes an assertion (because only creationists are intelligent) then they have the responsibility to provide evidence to support it. A good reply would be, "How do you know that?"

In the first one, I think you are saying that person A asks person B how they know that "Colleges and education shouldn't be free because free colleges don't educate the students." Their reply hinges on, "an educated person would say that free education is bad." If that is the case, then perhaps it is the "appeal to authority" fallacy, but I would still think they would have to produce evidence to support that statement. I think a good reply would be, "What educated people are saying that free education is bad?"

I see several ways to explain these interactions. When one has no facts to base their opinion they rely on feelings, which in of itself is not a bad thing. Just depends on how deep you want to get in the conversation, or if you are trying to change their minds about their opinion.

The other way to explain it is that some people just parrot the opinions of another, or others, for whatever reason, and it doesn't have to be logical.

Also one mans logic may be another's illogic, a common thing among humans, despite whatever facts there are, we all interpret the facts differently. I don't know what you would call the nuances of human interactions but some of us just like to engage others regardless of feelings or personal opinions. Subjects just don't matter because it's the interaction that counts most.

Finally there is also the need of humans to find a way to understand another human better so we need a label or category to put them in. Now that gets complicated. Few fit neatly into those categories you try to put them in, and that in itself is hard to explain.

Boy, I sure used a lot of words to say I have no clue!