YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Explaining EVERY Fallacy in PowerScaling! (Through Mario)

Explaining EVERY Fallacy in PowerScaling! (Through Mario) — Transcript

by FlakySeaSalt · 4,469 words · 662 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Oh my god. Is Flaky a power
0:03scaler? No. No. I used to do versus
0:06debates here and there. I used to do
0:09versus debates here and there, but some
0:11people can get so stupid I genuinely
0:13start tweaking. However, as a result, I
0:15would say I've become pretty well-versed
0:17in the art of combat debate. In fact,
0:19this video was originally going to be a
0:21response video to Six's Kachi versus the
0:23five Kag Summit video, but I really
0:25don't want to dip my knees in versus
0:27debates again and fear the tweet comes
0:29back. So instead, I thought of this.
0:30Fallacies are as they sound. They are
0:32arguments used in debates that are
0:34either dishonest or underhanded in
0:35certain areas, often trying to force or
0:37corner someone into agreeing with you
0:39instead of actually trying to trade
0:40numbers to see who's the most accurate.
0:42Surprisingly, there isn't a lot of
0:43videos talking about every fallacy in
0:45power scaling. In fact, the only one I
0:48could find was this video talking about
0:49just five of them, which fun fact, there
0:52isn't five, there's 50. Most of this
0:55should be common sense, but I've seen so
0:56many genuinely brain deadad people on
0:58Twitter that I feel the need to go in
1:00depth on even the most basic of these
1:02fallacies. And I'm going to be using
1:03Mario as a reference point for that cuz
1:05that's some more fun. I'll be using
1:07Versus Battle Wiki as a reference for
1:08it. If there are any more I'm missing,
1:10do let me know in the
1:13comments. Let's say I'm trying to debate
1:15with you who is faster, Mario or
1:19Pikachu. I try to tell you that Mario is
1:21faster than Pikachu because he has light
1:23level reaction. If your response to that
1:25is Mario's not light speed cuz you are
1:27dumb or there is no way you actually are
1:30smart enough to say that,
1:31congratulations. You are a user of the
1:33most overused and dumbest fallacy in all
1:36of debating. Ad homonym. Ad hom is when
1:38you try to value someone's points not by
1:40disproving the points but in trying to
1:43devalue the person. I cannot explain to
1:45you the amount of comments I would find
1:47on any video. Simply put, it does
1:49nothing for the debate. Properly
1:50logically disprove the notions first and
1:53foremost. Otherwise, a proper debate
1:55session will turn into a contest
1:56in a matter of seconds. Better argument
1:58would have been something like, "No,
2:00Mario shouldn't be because most of his
2:01showings are mock speed and stuff like
2:03that." Hey man, I'm just saying Mario
2:05can't throw a punch like Kratos can.
2:07What the heck? Kratos is not universal.
2:09Oh, look at that. Another fallacy. This
2:12fallacy is called the straw man. Straw
2:14man is when you take an argument and
2:15decide to completely exaggerate what is
2:18being said here and as a result
2:19completely ignore the entire point of
2:21the statement. Straw mans are usually
2:22hard to spot in a debate. But if you
2:24notice a weird leap in logic or an
2:26attempt to try twisting or corrupting
2:27your words, that is usually straw man
2:29tactics and is a fallacy as it doesn't
2:31properly try to address the argument you
2:34might be trying to make. Hey, I think
2:36Mario is universal. Want to know why?
2:38Cuz nothing said he can't be. I love
2:40this one because it's the funniest
2:41argument I'll hear out of people
2:43sometimes. Burden of proof is when you
2:45make a statement and claim it's true by
2:47saying there's a lack of evidence to
2:49prove it false. This becomes a fallacy
2:51because you don't have proof that it's
2:53true anyway, so cancels itself out.
2:55Funniest thing, I see this argument with
2:57Sonic.exe a lot. Prove to me that he
2:59isn't universal without giving proof
3:00that he is universal. You really can't
3:02argue with stupid, can you? Appeal the
3:04motive is when you once again try to
3:05disprove sentiments not by devaluing a
3:08statement but by devaluing a person
3:09instead. However, instead of throwing an
3:11insult, you just question their motives.
3:13This happens a whole lot in the Mario
3:15versus Sonic debates I see where instead
3:17of trying to debate points out, you
3:18might hear a conversation go like,
3:20"Sonic is so much faster than Mario and
3:22Mario doesn't have ways to counter Super
3:24Form when his star runs out." Wow. This
3:26does nothing. It actually does nothing.
3:28What did you prove in saying that?
3:30Nothing was disproven in saying that.
3:32Appeal to popularity. I love this one
3:34cuz this is literally everyone. How many
3:36polls have you seen of who would win in
3:37a fight and the poll always goes to the
3:39more popular character? Unfortunately,
3:41saying that one character is more
3:43successful than another is not a power
3:45statement. Crazy, right? This applies
3:47for general sentiments, too. Just
3:48because the general public agrees that
3:50one character should win doesn't
3:52necessarily mean that it's correct and
3:54that it's a valid argument that you can
3:55use. Everything needs to be based in
3:57logic when it comes to debates. Mario
3:59should be stronger than Link cuz Mario
4:01characters are stronger than Zelda
4:03characters. You can see where the
4:04problem is, right? Circular reasoning is
4:06when your assumed argument is based on
4:08another assumed argument. Both of these
4:10are statements without proof provided.
4:12But because the second statement is
4:14acting as proof for the first, you are
4:16made to think that the sentiment is
4:17true. But you cannot make an argument
4:19like this unless you have proven that
4:21argument beforehand. Otherwise, it's
4:23circular reasoning. Nonsequittor.
4:26Nonsequator is when you use a fact as
4:29proof of something that just doesn't
4:30pertain to the argument. If I told you
4:32that Mario can jump really high and then
4:34say because of that he's building level
4:35strength, you might think I'm an actual
4:37idiot and I would be. A similar argument
4:39would be Goku can create after images
4:41and is therefore speed of light. Just
4:43because there's some loose connection to
4:45the argument does not mean the argument
4:46is suddenly proven. They would either
4:48require more explanation or it just
4:50doesn't work.
4:51[Music]
4:52Red. This is when you try to rebuttal
4:55against a statement, but a point
4:56completely unrelated to that statement.
4:58Mario has to be faster and light cuz he
5:00can dodge lightning from Kleta. Okay.
5:02Yeah, but he never actually beat Kletto
5:04on his own. Both statements are
5:06technically true, but statement two does
5:08not rebuke statement one. Association
5:10fallacy. Mario is able to lift a
5:12building, so a toad should be able to as
5:15well. Association fallacy is when you
5:17argue that a feat is possible because of
5:19a connection a person may have to
5:21another character with that feat. A
5:22simple connection is not enough of an
5:25argument to suggest this. You might have
5:27seen me use this fallacy in my 106
5:29Kakashi video here and there. In fact,
5:31argument from ignorance. This is a
5:33little bit tricky. It's similar to
5:34burden of proof in that you make a
5:36statement based on a lack of evidence.
5:38There has never been proof of anyone
5:40being faster than the Flash. He has to
5:41be the fastest person in all media. This
5:44can be troublesome as you can say
5:46something like this but still not be a
5:48fallacy. If you said there has never
5:50been proof of anyone being faster than
5:52the Flash so he might be the fastest all
5:54media wouldn't be a fallacy as you're
5:55just connecting a sentiment instead of
5:57trying to make a cold hard fact. But
5:59this is a jump in logic argument from
6:01incredility. I think I'm saying that
6:03correctly. This is an argument similar
6:05to ignorance but instead of it being
6:07based on a lack of evidence it's much
6:08rather not being able to believe
6:10presented evidence. Basically something
6:12like nah he's not that strong that don't
6:14feel right so he can't be that strong.
6:16It's clear to see why this argument
6:18doesn't work. It's not based in facts,
6:19but on personal emotion. It doesn't
6:21qualify as a debunking point just
6:23because you feel like something isn't
6:24right. Argument from belief. This is the
6:26flip side of argument from incredility.
6:28Where instead of choosing not to believe
6:29and presented evidence, you present your
6:31own belief as the proof. Mario's light
6:33speeded because I said so. It's the same
6:35reason of argument from incredility why
6:37this doesn't count as a discernable
6:39fact. It's your opinion, not an actual
6:41statement. Appeal to emotion. Another
6:44emotion-based fallacy. But appeal to
6:46emotion is basically when you try to use
6:47emotional tactics to force your opponent
6:49to think your way. Come on, you're a
6:51smart guy. You know I'm right. Or of
6:53course Mario can dodge bullets. He
6:54wouldn't really be a cartoon hero if he
6:56could. You know, this is based off some
6:58sort of sentimental arguments. Neither
7:00statement is proof. One is flattery and
7:02the other is wishful thinking. Appeal to
7:03tradition. This is when you try to argue
7:05that one character can beat another
7:07character because that's just how it has
7:09to be. Goku would solo all of Mario's
7:12friends. What makes you think Mario
7:13could beat him? You're trying to argue
7:15that because one way has to be true, the
7:17other way must be as well. One thing can
7:19be true on his own, but doesn't
7:20necessarily have to be true for others.
7:22The arguments can work in reverse, too.
7:24Sonic always beats Hercule, so he
7:25definitely can beat Goku. Equavocation.
7:27This is the One Punch Man argument. This
7:29is the argument that basically says, if
7:31you can interpret something this way,
7:32that way has to be true. The strongest
7:34version of this argument is Saitama
7:36would literally beat everyone because he
7:38can beat everyone in one punch simply
7:40based on the fact that he's called One
7:42Punch Man. Similar arguments are Sonic
7:44is only speed of sound because Sonic
7:46means sound or Vegeta's Big Bang attack
7:48has to be universal because the Big Bang
7:50created the universe. No limits fallacy.
7:53No limits fallacy is essentially this
7:55ability hasn't shown a limit, so there
7:57isn't one. There's no way to prove an
7:59ability with no known limit even has a
8:01limit. Examples are Sonic has infinite
8:04speed because we have never seen his
8:05speed get pushed to the limit. Itachi
8:07said that only a manga Kyosharing can
8:09beat him. That means every universe
8:11would lose cuz no one has that.
8:13Everything has an explanation and
8:15everything should have a limit unless
8:16stated otherwise. Undistributed middle.
8:19This is when you misuse the transitive
8:21property. If feet A implies feed B and
8:23feed B implies feed C, then feet C
8:27should imply feed A. This is very
8:29similar to how all thumbs are fingers
8:31but not all fingers are thumbs. Just
8:33because every thumb is a finger doesn't
8:34mean the reverse is true. Not all
8:36fingers are going to be thumbs.
8:37Similarly, if you make a statement like
8:39every omnipotent being is a god, then
8:41the sage of six paths is omnipotent.
8:43This is undistributed middle fallacy
8:45fallacy. Fallacy fallacy is a warning to
8:48anyone who uses this list to their
8:50advantage. These fallacies are there to
8:52be called out so that when your opponent
8:54uses said fallacy that they can rethink
8:56their strategy. You cannot by any means
8:59use the fact that they are using a
9:01fallacy to imply that you are right in
9:03this debate. Just like your opponent,
9:05you need to apply logic too. You can't
9:07cheat it by exclaiming minor spelling
9:09mistake. I win. Argument from anecdotal
9:12evidence. This is when you try to imply
9:14your proof by telling a story. A story
9:16that can't be confirmed or denied.
9:18Because we can't prove your evidence in
9:20this story, we won't agree with you as a
9:23result. Biggest argument often uses with
9:25Madra versus Itachi where people will
9:27randomly say Kishimoto once said that he
9:29had to kill Itachi because he would have
9:31beaten Ma. There is no proof that he has
9:33said that to anybody and you can't use
9:35that as an argument. Proof by example.
9:38Basically, this is when you do provide
9:39proof of something, but then use that
9:41proof to speak generally. Reverse Flash
9:44can't be that fast because he's been
9:45tagged by Batman who's slow. Therefore,
9:48anyone of Batman's speed is enough to
9:50hurt Reverse Flash. This statement
9:52ignores the possibility of this being a
9:54statistical anomaly and not held true
9:56all the time. You need to prove that
9:58your example is not an anomaly and
10:00there's a clear discerning explanation
10:02or proof to these things. You'll see
10:04this argument be used all the time with
10:06tune force characters like Bugs Bunny or
10:08even Mario where because they'll have
10:09moments where something as simple as a
10:11hammer is able to destroy them
10:12apparently completely rebukes all the
10:14times they've been so above those
10:16leagues. You have to naturally assume
10:18these characters are at their best
10:20affirming the consequence. This happens
10:22when you use a premise to prove a
10:24conclusion. when you're supposed to use
10:26a conclusion to prove the premise.
10:28People who can jump 100 meters in the
10:30air should have building level strength
10:32in their legs. Since Mario has done that
10:34before, he has to be building level.
10:36Simply saying a statement like this
10:37should come with proof that it works
10:39like this in the Mario world. Denying
10:41the anticidence. This is the opposite of
10:43affirming the consequence where you use
10:45a premise to prove a conclusion and use
10:47that to say they don't follow this
10:48premise, therefore they don't follow
10:50this conclusion. They are both quite
10:51similar to nonsequittors. Bias sample.
10:54bias sample is similar to appeal to
10:56popularity, except you use some
10:57well-known person's thought about a
10:59fight as proof of who would win. The
11:00Mario example of this is Mario would
11:03beat Sonic in a fight because Death
11:04Battle says so. Death Battle is not the
11:07only source, and one could argue that
11:09they have a bias against Sonic due to
11:10how many death battles the franchise
11:12have lost. Like it's been repeated time
11:14and again in this video, you have to
11:16prove your own proof and research and
11:18not to rely on sentiments or bias
11:19samples to work with. This could be more
11:21finicky, too. Say you have a vote for
11:23who's in agreement on durability, Mario
11:25or Sonic. If this vote was done in a
11:27Sonic specific YouTube channel, of
11:29course, Sonic would get the winning
11:30agreements and vice versa. Halftruth.
11:33This is when someone provides proof and
11:34evidence but leaves out crucial
11:36information to prove their points.
11:38Consider this a lie of omission where
11:40you say something like, "Mario was able
11:42to beat Cullex. Therefore, Kulix can be
11:44beaten by anyone on Mario's level." This
11:46is a halftruth as beating didn't just
11:49take Mario. It took two other people to
11:51do it. Maybe five totally if you're
11:53looking at a more lore perspective of
11:55it. Hasty generalization. This can
11:57overlap with proof by example. A lot of
11:59these fallacies can overlap actually
12:01where you don't get enough evidence to
12:02prove the conclusion you're trying to
12:04make. Mario has been beaten by regular
12:06enemies. Therefore, even a toad can beat
12:08Mario in a fight. This ignores all the
12:10times where this wasn't true and is a
12:12hastily made conclusion. Misleading
12:15vividness. is almost exactly proof by
12:17example, but instead of just giving the
12:19example, they just give a lot of detail
12:21to the example. So, back to my original
12:23proof by example. Reverse Flash isn't
12:25fast. He's been tagged by Batman, who
12:27was able to stab him in the foot, so
12:29anyone of Batman's speed can tag him.
12:31The details don't prove anything, but
12:33it's there to try and convince you.
12:35Package deal. People think this is
12:37transitive property again, but it isn't.
12:39A is true. A is associated with B, so B
12:41is true. Mario can move faster in light
12:43and airgo can travel through time.
12:45Because going faster and light and time
12:47travel are tied, one can make this
12:49argument, but you have no idea how time
12:51travel works in the Mario world. And
12:52there's no proof of this. False
12:54dichotomy. This is when you say that
12:56given some options, only one is true to
12:58prove your point. When Bowser shot a
13:00fireball at Mario, Mario had two
13:02options. Either he was fast enough to
13:03jump out of the way or block it. This
13:05doesn't work as it removes the
13:07possibility of other options. Namely,
13:09what if Mario saw Bowser build up for
13:12the attack and just prepared his
13:13defenses beforehand? False dichotomy
13:15forces you to think a certain way
13:16without keeping an open mind to other
13:18potential openings. Correlation implies
13:21causation. Event A is associated with
13:24event B. Therefore, event A causes event
13:27B. When Mario is in the dream world and
13:29he fused with Luigi, Mario's stat is the
13:32combination of his and Luigi. Therefore,
13:34anyone who fuses with Mario in the dream
13:36dimension will give Mario a similar
13:38buff. This leaves out the possibility
13:40that's different other times, like how
13:41Antasma enters Mario, but doesn't give
13:44Mario any of his stats. Post Hawk. Post
13:46Hawk is when you believe that because
13:48two events happened one right after the
13:50other, that the events had to have been
13:52caused by the other. So, for a dumb
13:54example, Mario had no sleeves when he
13:56beat Shadow Mario. Therefore, Mario
13:58having no sleeves gave him enough power
14:00to beat him. The counterargument to post
14:02talk is that it ignores any other
14:04explanation for Mario being able to win.
14:06In this
14:10[Music]
14:11case, poisoning the well. Similar to ad
14:14homonym, but instead of trying to insult
14:16your opponent directly, you devalue him
14:18in front of the audience or judges and
14:20try to make him appear invalid for the
14:22argument. Your honor, my opponent is a
14:24stinky Sonic fan. He won't speak the
14:26Mario name correctly and will say Sonic
14:28beats Mario. He shouldn't be trusted.
14:30Obviously, the only truly stinky person
14:33is you. Fallacy of accident. Somebody
14:35tells you a general rule to justify
14:37something when there could exist
14:39exceptions or the rule itself is an
14:41exception. In a fight, the faster
14:42character usually wins. Mario can move
14:45faster than Sonic by using a warp pipe.
14:47Therefore, he will win. Not only is the
14:49faster character thing come with
14:50possible exceptions, warp pipe is a
14:52unique exception to the count of
14:54teleportation and can't actually count
14:56in a speed debate.
14:58Ooh, this is a variation of ad hominant
15:01where an argument gets dismissed by
15:02devaluing the person's practices rather
15:05than their arguments. Mario has never
15:07stated to be able to jump over 100
15:08blocks. That's a lie. Well, you lied
15:11when you said Sonic was stated to outrun
15:13a black hole. You need to give proof.
15:15Discrediting the person in question
15:17doesn't add or help your case. Loaded
15:19question. This is when a person gives
15:20you rhetorical gotcha question that
15:22makes it regardless of a yes or no
15:24answer, you won't win. Are you still
15:26making that stupid claim? Saying yes
15:28admits that it's a stupid claim. Saying
15:30no admits that it's a stupid claim.
15:33Fallacy of composition. Basically, if a
15:35person say that A is true, then anything
15:37larger than A is also true. Mario can
15:39beat Pikachu, therefore he can beat the
15:41entire Pokemon verse. Argumentum
15:44adverbosium. This is when someone tries
15:46to prove their claim by sending what's
15:48essentially a twit longer. But said twit
15:50longer is repetitive and doesn't come
15:52with any strong evidence. The purpose of
15:53this is usually to try and exhaust your
15:55opponent with constant yapping, constant
15:57beating around the bush. Figure of
15:58speech is when you take a saying or
16:00figure of speech literally, like when
16:02there exists a statement like Mario's
16:04reaction is godlike, therefore he is a
16:06god. Godlike is often used as hyperbole
16:09or simply as a hype statement. Unless
16:10made clear, it doesn't usually mean that
16:13Mario has reactions of a proper god.
16:15Argentum adnauseium is probably the most
16:18toxic one where in spite of how many
16:20times you argue against someone's point,
16:22they just keep saying the same exact
16:24point as an argument with the intent to
16:27make you give up and concede out of
16:29sheer annoyance. I don't even want to
16:30give an example for this one. Golden
16:32mean fallacy. This is the idea that when
16:34given two opposing viewpoints that the
16:36correct viewpoint is somewhere in
16:38between. Essentially, it's when you make
16:39the argument of I think Mario beats
16:41Peashooter. You think Peashooter beats
16:43Mario. that must mean they are probably
16:45equal. This doesn't give credence to the
16:47possibility that one of these viewpoints
16:48is just not correct. Style over
16:50substance. This is the argument you give
16:52where you personally think one is
16:53stronger than the other just from how
16:54much more spectacle there is to them.
16:56This is very common and it's a pretty
16:58popular reason why so many characters
16:59would be thrown into versus debates just
17:01because of their flashy new style. It's
17:03like saying Sonic has after images and
17:05blurs whenever he moves. Mario doesn't.
17:07Therefore, Sonic has to be faster.
17:09Visual is artist's interpretation. A
17:11style. Just because one thing is drawn a
17:13certain way unlike another doesn't mean
17:15it's not of this certain way. False
17:17analogy. This is when you try to argue a
17:19point using an analogy, but the analogy
17:22doesn't work. It's like saying Mario
17:24versus Flash the same as trying to swat
17:26a fly. Yeah, the fly is fast and hard to
17:28get, but you'll eventually get them. It
17:30goes without saying that a fly is far
17:32far weaker than a person, which may not
17:35apply to this debate whatsoever.
17:36Analogies need to be more on the nose
17:38than this faulty premise. This is
17:40similar to affirming the consequence,
17:42but this time instead of using an honest
17:44premise that can be possible, the
17:46premise is just wrong. If you're able to
17:48make rocks fly upwards just by powering
17:50up, then that must mean gravity
17:52manipulation is at play. What answer
17:54does Mario have to Goku's manipulating
17:56gravity? This premise just doesn't make
17:58any sense, as there could be other
18:00explanations to this effect, and this
18:02current explanation is also on its own
18:04not making sense. Genetic fallacy. This
18:06is when you say, "This isn't your
18:08argument, so I won't counter it." That
18:10does not matter. An argument is still an
18:13argument, and you need to counter it as
18:15a result. Just because a person says,
18:16"You got this calculation from a
18:18website, I'm not countering copied work,
18:21make your own conclusions next time."
18:23This is completely ignorant as this
18:25doesn't at all try to deny the point,
18:27just the person making the point.
18:28Incomplete comparison. This is when you
18:30try to make a vague claim in hopes of it
18:32being a valid argument. You'll hear this
18:34time and again and people say things
18:36like, "But Sonic is really fast." Or,
18:37"But Goku is really strong." But the
18:39questions, to what standards are you
18:41saying this? To what extent do you mean?
18:43Who are you comparing any character to
18:44when you're making this claim? Yeah,
18:46Goku is pretty strong next to Yamcha,
18:48but he doesn't look that strong next to
18:49Grandmaster Zeno. Inconsistent
18:51comparison. This is when you try to
18:53prove your points by comparing a
18:54person's speeds to multiple other
18:56characters. This only works if these
18:58comparisons are meaningful. For example,
18:59if I was to say something like, "Mario
19:01would beat any Sonic character. He's
19:03faster than Vector, smarter than Sonic,
19:05stronger than Espio. Yeah, these
19:08comparisons might be true, but they
19:10aren't actually that special. These
19:11would have more meaning if the
19:13conclusions I drew was he's faster than
19:15Sonic, smarter than Eggman, stronger
19:17than Knuckles, cuz these are high tiers
19:19of their stats. It would matter a lot
19:21more here. It's much more consistent.
19:23Invalid proof. Invalid proof, aside from
19:25meaning this proof is wrong, is more
19:27commonly when you provide calculations
19:29for some power, but you did the math
19:31wrong. If I said to you that Mario has
19:33scalings to show that he's 10 times
19:35stronger than an atomic nuke and then
19:37gives you the math and it shows 10 times
19:39weaker. I think the most meme version of
19:42this was in Death Battles first Goku
19:44versus Superman where they blatantly got
19:46wrong the math they use for their
19:48scalings on Goku. This was clowned on in
19:50the power scaling community. Even Kid Me
19:52was looking at this and was a little
19:54confused, affirming a disjunct. This is
19:56when you say there can only be two
19:57possibilities. One is true and the other
19:59is false. ignoring the possibility that
20:01they are both true or both false. Either
20:03Mario has great arm strength or great
20:05leg strength. We have seen him jump
20:07high, so he has to have great leg
20:08strength, right? Existential fallacy.
20:11This is when your argument hinges on
20:13something's existence when it doesn't
20:15exist. If Mario gets stronger with each
20:17powerup star up until 150, then Mario
20:20with 200 stars would be even stronger.
20:22Here's the thing, though. You might be
20:24right, might not. But there is no game
20:26where Mario can get 200 stars. Fallacy
20:28of exclusive premise. This is when
20:30someone gives you two negative premises
20:32and tries to associate them. No Mario
20:34character can jump fast. Some Mario
20:36characters cannot dodge. So that means
20:38Mario characters that can jump fast
20:40can't dodge. There's no real association
20:42to be had here. One isn't proven by the
20:44other. And my favorites appeal to
20:47reality fallacy. Have you ever heard or
20:49used this argument? This character can't
20:51be faster in light because nothing is
20:53faster in light. It literally takes
20:55infinite energy and it's the speed
20:57limit. He has to be moving either near
20:59light speed or edit. This is appeal to
21:01reality fallacy where because of how
21:03things work in our reality, you presume
21:05they work the same way in any written
21:07reality which is obviously not true. You
21:09have no clue whether the world that was
21:11written is a world that allows passing
21:13of the speed limit. Hence, it's not an
21:15argument that can be used. Only certain
21:17things like simple mathematical concepts
21:19can stay largely due to how
21:20self-explanatory it is. Yes, force is
21:23how hard something is hitting you. This
21:25is everything I know. You can check the
21:26wiki itself if you want to get its
21:28explanations on things. These are how I
21:30interpret each and every fallacy. Now,
21:32for all versus debate fiends out there,
21:34have fun and subscribe.
21:36[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Explaining EVERY Fallacy in PowerScaling! (Through Mario) by FlakySeaSalt, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,469 words across 662 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.