>Someone makes a claim (with no source) >Someone else makes

>most arguments here are made without evidence
[citation needed]

>people come to participate in informal discussion on an imageboard with no official discussion formula

You don't say.

i treat /his/ like a chatroom where I get to engage in lively conversational and use all the stuff that I read that I never get to talk about with people in real life

>>2276118
/thread, if you can't stand the circlejerks and shit-flingin' contests don't browse /his/.

a citation is nothing more than an argument from authority. citations mean nothing. the person you are citing isn't necessarily correct. if you can't present evidence/a sound argument by yourself, of course you wouldn't think it's possible, and you might make a retarded thread like this showing everybody that yet another random guy somewhere doesn't understand how logical validity functions.

File: 898199c455f5bfe966307750d474358d.500x450x1[1].gif (10KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x450px

>>2276110
>>2276118

File: 357[1].jpg (24KB, 540x362px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 540x362px

>>2276245
>a citation is nothing more than an argument from authority.
Do don't even know what an argument from authority is, do you?

>>2276245
Excuse me what the fuck something can be completely logically valid and totally untrue at the same time.

>>2276110
neck yourself and after that you'll have to go back

>>2276267

Not him, but something is logically valid because of the chain of reasoning leading to a true conclusion from true premises.

Apply logically valid reasoning to bad premises and you'll almost certainly get a flawed conclusion.

The classic example I got was

>If the streets are wet, then it rained recently
>The streets are wet
>Therefore, it rained recently.

This is logically valid, but the first premise is kind of unreasonable and dumb.

>>2276792
You can have a logically valid argument that results from untrue statements

>>2276245

Wait, so you're saying everyone has an equally valid opinion on history, even those who have never studied the primary sources?

>>2276110
>he says as he provides no source for his cliam