Complex question fallacy

Let's evaluate the requirements for the Complex Question Fallacy.

Requirement one: Must have a presupposition built in.

A serious problem with the definition of the Complex Question Fallacy is that it doesn't describe exactly how to determine whether there is a presupposition. What are the requirements? To provide a definitive answer, a psychological study would need to be conducted, asking participants if they had some subconscious bias from the question to condemn Hamas. That isn't going to happen in an impromptu situation. This problem of not having a definitive way to determine whether there was a presupposition or not creates a situation in which each person makes a subjective determination of whether they feel the question presupposes something. Because of this subjective determination, the person who feels that the question has presupposed something meets the requirement of the Complex Question Fallacy. Because of the current situation between Israel and Gaza, the media coverage every day, and the rhetoric that is used, it is not unreasonable to think that the question could be a biased attempt by the person asking the question to condemn Hamas without stating it explicitly. And therefore, it protects the person asking the question from being accused of making a false claim. And that is another requirement of the Complex Question Fallacy. The name of the Complex Question Fallacy could be misleading. The question doesn't need to be complicated. It can be a "loaded question" or a "trick question."

So, if a person who encounters this question feels that the question is presupposing that Hamas is a terrorist organization, then the requirements for the Complex Question Fallacy have been met for that person. Hopefully, you can understand the problem with the subjective judgment of each person in determining whether there was a presupposition or not. For the person who doesn't feel that there was a presupposition, they could state that the Complex Question Fallacy doesn't apply. But it doesn't apply to them .

Imagine that we decided to set a standard for whether there was a presupposition or not. And the standard was that the majority of the population felt that the question presupposed something. This would be difficult to establish. Again, the problem with evaluating whether the Complex Question Fallacy was committed is that a definite way to establish whether a presupposition was committed is impossible unless you could "read someone's mind" and know their intentions. Of course, you could ask them directly. "Do you condemn Hamas, and is the question presupposing that?"

Given what I have presented, I could state that the Complex Question Fallacy has been committed because of the current situation, which affects the context of how the question is perceived. It's not unreasonable to suppose that, given the current situation, the question presupposes a bias to condemn Hamas. And if there is a presupposition, then a requirement for the Complex Question Fallacy has been met.

I conclude that the Complex Question Fallacy is difficult to definitively prove, and subjective to the person evaluating the question. How is it proven whether there was a presupposition or not? If you had god-like powers and could know the intentions of everyone, then you could know whether there was a presupposition or not.

Obviously the situation between Israel and Hamas is one of the most contentious situations in the entire world right now. So, assuming that there could be bias and presupposition in any question containing the word Hamas isn't unreasonable. I'm not trying to answer what the solution to that problem is. I do not want to make any generalizations that could be misunderstood, and I am not making an attempt to determine who is right and who is wrong.

I see the issue here as fuzziness. Part of critical thinking is to state the issue in clear and concise terms. The definition of all words involved cannot include “muddy” or less than strictly understood concepts. Or, as Kettering said, “A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved.”

The question posed here requires the reader to assume many facts not in evidence, in that those facts are not stated, but assumed. Therefore, we cannot do a logical analysis.

This is not at all a fallacy. Very simple question. You can substitute "Hamas" with anything and it would still be a simple question:

Do you condemn...

Israel?
The Catholic Church?
God?
Satan?
Republicans?
Democrats?
Santa?
etc...

I think you are presupposing too much presupposing in the question :)

Let's simplify this form even more...

"Do you like ice cream?" We wouldn't say this is a fallacy because presupposes ice cream is delicious and whomever disagrees is a hater of all things good. Although that very well might be the case.

I don't think a question can be fallacious.  It can be poorly worded.  In this case, the proper response should be another question, i.e., "Well, what specifically have they done that one might consider worthy of condemnation?"