The Concept of False Equivalence Has No Place in Debate. | False Equivalence Is Not a Thing pt. 2 

I think I have stated several times, both in this video and in the previous one (especially with the comparison I made with "false statement fallacy" claiming that the concept is just a false statement and nothing more) that you can claim an equivalence is false and, as such, of course, people can say "false equivalence" and claim that's what that means. If that's your only problem with the video, then we have no issue here. However, I want to point out why I rag so hard on the concept. Take, for example, how you say that it is necessary. Surprisingly, this concept is so unimportant that it is not. We could entirely do away with it and still be able to call out the flawed logic in an argument since, in order for a b to be false, it must be the case that either a is not b or b is not a. In either circumstance, let's take "a is not b," then the statement claims, through substitution, that "not b b," which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. In summary, the "why" it is wrong (if it is merely a matter of faulty premises) is that it violates the law of non-contradiction. If it is a matter of validity rather than truth, then it follows that it is wrong for whatever fallacy that motivated the conclusion. In addition, if we ask ourselves what is wrong, we don't necessarily need to say "well, it's a false equivalence," because I can just as easily say that it is the two false statements as they relate to each other instead of the singular statement of equivalence. Is that trivial, nitpicky, and pointless, yes. You can say false equivalence just as you can say false statement or false triad or any other abstraction of statements. I think I put it best in the previous video when I said something around the lines of "false equivalence is at best something with minimal usage," because this is that minimal usage. It can be used, but, at the same time, it doesn't have to be, which is why I say that it is not a thing because it may be short-hand, or, as I said, abstraction, but it is not a unique concept in-and-of-itself. And, also, I have no clue what you mean by me confusing logic and rhetoric... I was clearly responding to people claiming it was an important part of rhetoric... so... like... that was a claim I was REFUTING, so I'm not sure why you're acting as though I agree with the people I'm REFUTING lmao

@@nickolasmelonballer I've through about it and maybe it's really a strange miscommunication, and people rather mean "false equivocation"? This would make more sense in a rhetorical context, I e. saying falsely that a term has multiple meanings when really it's only one, or the other way around, and therefore connecting homophones to be synonyms.

@@svaira It's possible. Yeah, idk how the term came to be. Obviously, buried underneath it there are valid concepts.