The official discord link if you wish to join the discord: https://discord.gg/j5RKwCvAFu
Support the wiki on our official Ko-Fi page or Patreon page!
No Limits Fallacy
Introduction
No Limits Fallacy is what we like to call a “battleboarding fallacy”, essentially it was a fallacy created by battleboarders that is not apart of the official list of logical fallacies, in the following we’re going to explain why this does not equate to a fallacy and why it’s not as needed as people may think.
Why It’s Not a Fallacy
To understand why this is not a fallacy, we must dive into what exactly is a logical fallacy.
The word "fallacy" comes from the Latin "fallacia" which means "deception, deceit, trick, artifice," however, a more specific meaning in logic (a logical fallacy) that dates back to the 1550s means "false syllogism, invalid argumentation." A logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation.
So as noted a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of it’s presentation, not due to a factual error. So does this mean logical fallacies can be so because of factual errors? No.
To illustrate this point, let's consider the availability heuristic, a cognitive bias that describes the tendency for one to overestimate the likelihood of more salient events, usually the result of how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be. This bias can be demonstrated in believing that you are more likely to die in a plane crash than an automobile accident because of all the plane crashes you see in the news. As a result of this bias, one might argue:
Plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents. Therefore, it is safer to drive in a car than fly in a plane.
This is not fallacious; it's factually incorrect. If it were true that plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents, the conclusion would be reasonable. The argument itself does not contain flawed reasoning; it contains incorrect information. While we can say the reasoning behind the argument was fallacious, there is no logical fallacy present in the argument. Similarly, if one told you that the sun was about 30 miles from the earth and the size of a football stadium, one would not be committing a fallacy, but they’d plainly be saying objectively incorrect information. Factual errors are not fallacies.
Now one would ask, “How does this apply to a NLF? It’s a logical flaw in reasoning and deceptive in nature.” Well first we must understand what exactly deceptive in nature entails in context.
A characteristic of logical fallacies is that they are not always easy to spot, especially to the untrained mind. Yet they often elude our critical faculties, making them persuasive for all the wrong reasons, sort of like optical illusions for the mind. Some, however, are very clearly wrong. For example,
“Don’t grow a mustache, because Hitler had a mustache. Therefore, you will be like Hitler!”
So does a NLF fall under being deceptive? No. A NLF is very easy to spot but also it does not have any deceptiveness behind it. A NLF is just factually incorrect. For example:
Brian in the story was shot by a bullet and unhurt. He then goes on to say “no matter what you use on me, I am invincible”, therefore Brian is invincible to everything.”
This is not a logical fallacy like one would think, it’s just a factually wrong comment. The argurer’s comment is not remotely deceptive, as anyone could point out the simple logical statement of “But how does the author know every single attack in fiction?”
Why Do We Bring This Up
The reason we bring this up for is because NLF is a frequently used term in battleboarding, which is an issue as it’s a made up fallacy that doesn’t even follow the traits of being a legitimate logical fallacy. What’s worse is battleboarders will take this already made up fallacy out of a battleboarding community and try to use it in other communities, spreading confusion, and just making the battleboarding community in general look bad.
We do not allow the argument or refute here of saying something is a NLF to refute a point or claim.
The Alternative to NLF
The alternative to NLF is extremely simple. Point out why their argument is factually incorrect and unproven. If someone argues “Super Sonic is invulnerable to anything” simply point how how he has not dealt with higher tiered beings then his own so that claim is unfounded. The same with “Saitama can one punch anything”, as he has not dealt with higher tiered beings in this verse, there is no proof to support that claim and thus it’s unfounded.
Conclusion
The No Limits Fallacy is not a logical fallacy whatsoever and should not be used to dismiss arguments, rather the claims themselves should be dismissed due to an overall lack of tangible evidence and unfounded claims.
Other Battleboarding Fallacies That Shouldn’t Be Used
- Area of Effect Fallacy: This doesn’t even meet any of the qualifications for a logical fallacy, one would not be able to fool the average person with this at all, this stems from the fact that people generally apply someone’s statistics to be due to them destroying said thing rather than harming someone who can destroy it. It’s merely a bad argument rather than a fallacy and should not be used.
- Appeal to Reality: This has been completely debunked on official threads regarding logical fallacies, the core concept of fiction is suspending one’s disbelief and accepting that this fictional world is now reality, to try and argue one is appealing to reality because they apply an IRL concept that should be impossible being done in fiction is completely ludicrous. It’s far more simple to just explain that fiction requires a suspension of disbelief and thus should be treated as such.
