If you haven't seen X, then any evidence you have against X can be dismissed.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Person 1: 2000 mules is true.
Person 2: 2000 mules isn't valid due to evince x, y and z.
Person 1: Have you watched it? Or is that what you have been told to think about it?
Person 2: No. I did my own research on their evidence, I have looked at the fact checks and debunked claims made in the film. I tested my own iPhones geotracking capabilities and here is my screen shot of it.
Person 1: So you haven't watched it. But You are still making assumptions about something you have not seen ,but are somehow knowable enough about what you haven't seen, to be critical of it.
...something you haven't seen with your own eyes....
Gotcha.
Answers
2P) A film made some claims
P) You did not watch the film
C) Therefore, you cannot debunk any of these claims.
This is a non sequitur. If you are aware that the film claims certain things, then these can be tested without watching the entire film, or any of it for that matter. This is because the truth of the propositions put forward by the filmmakers is independent of anyone's viewing of said film.
...something you haven't seen with your own eyes....
In the same vein, you don't have to see something first-hand to know it is true.
This is a non sequitur . The assumption is that one cannot know if something presented in a movie is true or not unless they see the movie. The fact is, they just need to know what is being presented (they don't need to watch the movie where it is presented).
Documentaries are notorious for appeal to emotion , cherry picking , sensationalizing, and basically being a tool to push some ideological agenda. Granted, some are very good at taking a neutral position, but most aren't - neutrality doesn't sell; extremism does. You don't need claims to be presented lathered in these fallacies - one just needs the claims.
This also relates to the idea of what "evidence" is worthy of evaluation and what can be dismissed based solely on the fact that the evidence has failed to convince experts in the area. For example, I will dismiss claims of flat earthers outright. Our time is limited and there are millions of batshit crazy claims, documentaries, websites, etc. It is not unreasonable to refuse to even consider these claims and let others evaluate the evidence.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course