It would be an ad hom for me to assume that their argument is fatally flawed because of their display of
obviously flawed reasoning, but their argument is inherently diminished as it is clear that they aren't serious about holding themselves accountable for
obviously flawed reasoning.
I don't know therefore there must be a god (
obviously flawed reasoning).
Not exact matches
That
reasoning is so
obviously flawed it could not have been written by a skeptic.
Further, the assessments of the
reasons for the «censorship» are
obviously flawed by being completely subjective.
The «heads / tails» analogy to try to justify an opposite conclusion (i.e. «climate in 100 years is easier to predict than tomorrow's weather») is
obviously flawed, for the
reasons you point out.