PromptBase
🤖 GPT
The handy tool quickly allows a user to find informal fallacies in natural language.
It's really simple to use. Simply insert your own reference text and the prompt will quickly analyse and output a list of the found incorrect natural language arguments and provide context to the fallacy using an example from the text.
It will find fallacies of equivocation, Tu quoque, slippery slope arguments, the fallacy of amphiboly, fallacies of composition and division, false dilemmas, the fallacy of begging the question, ad hominem fallacies, Ad populum, Ad baculum, False dichotomy, Post hoc, petitio principii, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, the strawman fallacy, fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of presumption and fallacies of relevance plus MORE!
A great tool with a wide range of uses. Easily discredit faulty arguments. Great for learning about different faulty natural language arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From my tests, the prompt easily found all fallacies in smaller texts. In larger pieces of text it would sometimes miss more nuanced fallacies, however when I raised the temperature it was able to find the more nuanced points, but at the expense of the quality of other results. For this reason, start the temperature low and increase it if results aren't up to scratch.
...more
$4.99
After purchasing, you will gain access to the prompt file which you can use with GPT or the app builder. You'll receive 20 free generation credits with this purchase. By purchasing this prompt, you agree to our terms of service.
Over 1 month ago
Prompt Details
Model
Completion - GPT-3.5 (text-davinci-003)
Token size
233 ($0.00470 / call)
Example input
I've smoked cigarettes for getting onto 60 years, I will be 80 next year and they have not done me any harm. All of my friends smoke cigarettes and we are all fine, some people even suggest that changing my habits at such an age could now be detrimental to my health, I think to continue smoking is the best option. My friend Gerry quit smoking a few years back and was dead within months, I would blame the increased stress. I don't go crazy, usually smoke about a pack a day. Society tries to tell you that smokers are a dying breed, but I patently disagree - at the betting shop and the pub everyone likes a smoke. I am not ashamed to admit I am heavily addicted to cigarettes though, but by that same token the goverment is constantly making my life harder, increasing taxes on cigarettes and causing me to spend more money every year, the government are a bunch of sick twisted fucks, I hate them all, they are personally attacking me for simply wanting to live my life as a free human being. The goverment claims that they are helping people by increasing cigarette taxes, however all they do is harm the end consumer like me, costing me more money and making me buy less at once which then results in more trips to the shop
Example output
1. Appeal to Ignorance: The speaker claims that because they have smoked cigarettes for 60 years without any harm, it is safe to continue smoking. This is a logical fallacy because it assumes that just because something has not been proven to be harmful, it is safe.
2. False Dilemma: The speaker suggests that the only two options are to quit smoking or continue smoking, and that quitting smoking could be detrimental to their health. This is a false dilemma because there are other options available such as reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or switching to a less harmful alternative.
3. Post Hoc: The speaker claims that their friend Gerry died soon after quitting smoking, and suggests that this was due to the increased stress. This is a logical fallacy because it assumes that because one event happened after another, the first event caused the second.
4. Ad Hominem: The speaker claims that the government is "a bunch of sick twisted fucks" and that they are personally attacking the speaker for wanting to live their life as a free human being. This is an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the character of the government instead of addressing their argument.
5. Appeal to Emotion: The speaker suggests that the government is making their life harder by increasing taxes on cigarettes, and that this is causing them to spend more money. This is an appeal to emotion because it attempts to evoke an emotional response from the audience.