What logical fallacy(/ies) (if any) is this?

Factual Questions
1

“That you disagree with my position proves your utterly flawed grasp of logic - and because you have an utterly flawed grasp of logic, your very disagreement validates my own position”

Certainly it is highly circular in form, but what is it exactly? Affiriming the consequent?

2

Great Debates?

3

Sounds like begging the question.

4

Two distinct examples of drawing a false conclusion with no connection to the supporting premises.

5

I’d call it “being an asshole.”

6

I think there’s a dash of *ad hominem * in the statement: “You have a flawed grasp of logic, therefore I’m right.” It assumes that the speaker is correct because the subject is incorrect. It denies the very real possibility of a true conclusion arising from false reasoning on the subject’s part, as well as the possibility of the speaker’s case being disproven by a third party who does possess a good grasp of logic.

7

Just straight circulus in demonstrando, I reckon. Affirming the consequent, fallacious thought it be, still requires a non-circular IF … THEN to be set up in the first place.

8

Thanks; I’m sure that would be the case if the person making the statement were bound by the normal rules, however in this case (and this is based on a real comment I saw in a thread on another message board*), the person appears to have jumped directly into the loop; their assertions are largely about the mindset or intent of the opposition and are unfalsifiable, for example:

SentientMeat is a moral reprobate - he has a human child that he intends to cook and eat; his reaction to my revelation of this horror will be predictable; he will either:

  • Break down and admit that that he has a human child he intends to cook and eat (proving my point)
  • Flatly deny that that he has a human child he intends to cook and eat, demonstrating that he is a liar and therefore a moral reprobate (and isn’t it just typical of lying moral reprobates to kill and eat human child? - proving my point)
    -Attempt to change the subject (which is just the same as denial - proving my point)
    See? Now you understand his choice of username.
  • [sup]Anyone care to guess the topic of debate - it really is rather easy[/sup]
9

In that case we would be debating not whether the argument was valid (ie. whether it follows given its premises), but whether it is sound (ie. whether those premises are true in the first place.)

The argument:

I am a reprobate.
Reprobates eat children, lie or evade accusations.
Therefore I will eat children, lie or evade accustions.

… is valid but unsound.

10

I think the problem in this particular instance is that the premises were never explicitly declared as a starting point; they can be inferred, but the person making the argument has never stated them (or necessarily thought about them at length).

11

I think it’s a straight non-sequitor.

The unproven and even unstated premise is that disagreement with me is a necessary and sufficient condition of cannibalism.

It does not follow.

Just my opinion. Of course, if you don’t agree, well . . . you know.

Tris

12

Let A = You disagree with my position
Let B = You have a flawed grasp of logic
Let C = Your disagreement validates my position

A -> B; B; ::C

B cannot logically imply anything; therefore, C is a non sequitur.

The argument is invalid.