Comparing LLM Summarising Abilities

8 llama3 (Meta+) and 5 phi3 (Microsoft) LLM versions

Page content

Testing how models with different number of parameters and quantization are behaving.

I ran 13 AI models, all of them available for self-hosting, summarising article about Appeal to Emotions logical fallacy. This article doesn’s have much ‘water’, all information is very concentrated.

What we want to see in the summary: list of

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences
  2. Appeal to Guilt
  3. Appeal to Ridicule
  4. Appeal to Anger
  5. Appeal to Spite
  6. Appeal to Disgust
  7. Appeal to Flattery
  8. Appeal to Pity
  9. Appeal to Patriotism
  10. Playing the Nazi card

The below are not Appeal to Emotions so I don’t expect it to be in summary, but I wouldn’t complain if it’s there though no extra points for these.

  • Pooh-pooh
  • Wishful thinking

Ollama hosting for LLMs - logo

I have run summarisation two times, and the results sometimes were very different. I was using Ollama to host the model, didn’t do any temperature tweaking. For each correct detection I give LLM 1 point. So the muximum points the AI model can get in one run is 10, and total is 20.

The models llama3-gradient:8b-instruct-1048k-q8_0, llama3-gradient:8b-instruct-1048k-fp16, dolphin-llama3:8b-256k-v2.9-fp16 were additionally tweaked by 3rd parties, they have advantage of larger context window compared to meta ones. I have added them here too, to see how they perform. Gradients were good, Dolphin wasn’t.

The result

Model Name and Version 1st tun points 2nd run points Total points Comments
phi3:3.8b-mini-4k-instruct-q4_K_M 1 4 5 Not seeing much
phi3:3.8b-mini-instruct-4k-fp16 4 3 7 Too many false positives
phi3:14b-medium-128k-instruct-q6_K 3 4 7
phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-q8_0 4 7 11
phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-f16 6 6 12 Hallucinations
llama3:8b-instruct-q4_0 9 10 19 Plesant surprise
llama3:8b-instruct-q8_0 10 9 19
llama3:8b-instruct-fp16 10 10 20 Very nice!
llama3:70b-instruct-q2_K 10 9 19 Missed the Nazi card
llama3:70b-instruct-q6_K 10 10 20 Awesome! Who has so much RAM?
llama3-gradient:8b-instruct-1048k-q8_0 9 9 18 Strange comment about NC but ok.
llama3-gradient:8b-instruct-1048k-fp16 10 8 18
dolphin-llama3:8b-256k-v2.9-fp16 3 0 3 What did they do to these nice little 3 llamas?

The conclusion

My favorites:

  • llama3:8b-instruct-fp16 - winner in medium-weight category
  • llama3:70b-instruct-q6_K - winner in heavy weight, llama3:70b-instruct-q2_K not far behind
  • llama3:8b-instruct-q4_0 & llama3:8b-instruct-q8_0 for very good pointing almost all the items, relatively lightweight

All Phi3 models didn’t perform well for me.

Model output summaries samples

phi3:3.8b-mini-4k-instruct-q4_K_M

Appeal to Emotions, or argumentum ad passiones, is the act of persuading someone by eliciting emotional responses rather than providing logical reasoning. This technique falls under a broader category known as Red Herring fallacies because it diverts attention from the main issue at hand.

Several specific types of appeals to emotion have been identified:

Appeal to Fear or Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) This occurs when a claim is made based on the potential negative outcomes that may arise if a particular course of action isn’t taken, despite lacking supporting evidence. It can be seen as an attempt to scare someone into agreeing with one’s position. Examples include:

  • “If we don’t start saving for college immediately after our child is born, they might miss out on higher education opportunities.”
  • “Should you not attend university, the consequences could leave you unprepared for a successful career.”

Pooh-pooh (argumentum ad verecundiam) This fallacy involves dismissing an argument or position as irrelevant or insignificant without addressing its actual content. It is a combination of a straw man fallacy and appeal to ridicule, where the person’s ideas are trivialized through mockery or sarcasm rather than logical debate. An example would be:

  • “Why should we even consider investing in cryptocurrency when it sounds like an absurd idea?”

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) This fallacy asserts that a claim must be true simply because there is no evidence against it, or vice versa. It exploits the absence of information rather than providing substantive proof for one’s argument:

  • “No one has proven climate change isn’t real; therefore, we should believe in its existence.”

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument manipulits emotions rather than appealing to logic or reason. This tactic involves leveraging fear, anger, pity, flattery, and other strong feelings to persuade others without presenting sound evidence or rational arguments for the position being advocated.

Types of Appeal to Emotion:

  1. Appeal to Fear (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
    This fallacy involves instilling fear in an audience by suggesting that something terrible will happen if a particular course of action is not taken or the opposite course is followed, without providing substantial evidence for such outcomes. The goal is often to manipulate individuals into making decisions based on emotion rather than reason.

Example:
“If we don’t start saving for college immediately after our child is born, they will likely be burdened with insurmountable student debt and face an uncertain future.”

  1. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
    This fallacy seeks sympathy from the audience by invoking pity for a person or group, using their perceived misfortune as the basis of an argument, without addressing the actual issue at hand.

Example:
“Our town’s fundraising efforts have been low; we must act now to help those in need, despite not having strong evidence that these funds will be used effectively.”

  1. Appeal to Flattery (Argumentum ad laudbam)
    This tactic involves complimenting the audience or an individual involved, with the intent of distracting from the lack of logical argumentation or evidence supporting a claim.

Example:
“Your insight on this topic is unparalleled; therefore, you must agree that our company’s approach to environmental sustainability is the best.”

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam)
    While not exclusively about emotions, appealing to authority can manipulate emotions by leveraging respect and reverence for a figure or institution, even when that authority may not be relevant to the argument’s subject matter.

Example:
“Renowned psychologist Dr. Smith endorses this educational program; thus, it must be effective.”

  1. Reductio ad Hitlerum (a form of Appeal to Emotion)
    This is a specific type of fallacy that involves equating an opponent’s viewpoint with Adolf Hitler or Nazism, attempting to discredit their position by association without engaging in the argument itself. This tactic relies on invoking strong negative emotions tied to historical atrocities.

Example:
“Anyone advocating for free market policies is just as misguided as a Nazi.”

Why Appeal to Emotion Can Be Misleading:

Appealing to emotion can be persuasive because humans are naturally emotional beings, and these appeals often resonate on an intuitive level. However, they bypass critical thinking and logical analysis, leading to decisions based on feelings rather than facts or rational arguments. This makes appeal-to-emotion fallacies powerful but ultimately deceptive in constructing sound arguments.

phi3:3.8b-mini-instruct-4k-fp16

Appeal to Emotions Fallacy: A Comprehensive Overview

The appeal to emotions fallacy is a rhetorical strategy that attempts to influence opinions by eliciting strong feelings rather than presenting solid arguments. This form of persuasion leverages human psychology, where emotional reactions can often overshadow rational thought processes. In this summary, we will explore the various manifestations of appeal to emotions fallacy and their implications on discourse:

Definition

The appeal to emotions, also known as argumentum ad passiones or for the sake of children, is an attempt to persuade someone by appealing directly to their emotional state. This tactic undermines logical reasoning and critical thinking in favor of generating immediate but unsubstantiated reactions. It is a part of several informal fallacies that challenge the validity of arguments through emotionally charged language rather than factual evidence.

Manifestations

The appeal to emotions can take various forms, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear (Ad Baculum): This occurs when someone uses fear-based tactics or threats to coerce others into accepting a particular viewpoint. For example, “You must support this policy because failure to do so would result in catastrophic consequences.”
  2. Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam): Involves evoking pity or sympathy to gain agreement. An instance of this might be, “We cannot ignore the plight of these children; we must act now!”
  3. Appeal to Love/Affection (Appeal to Emotion - Ad Pathos): Leverages love or affection to influence opinions. For example, “Support our local businesses so that they can provide jobs and care for the families in our community.”
  4. Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem): Suggests a course of action is correct because it has been followed traditionally or historically without considering its merits. “Our ancestors did it this way, so we should too!”
  5. Slippery Slope (Causal Fallacy): Asserts that an initial action will lead to a series of negative events, often appealing to fear as the basis for the argument. For example, “If we legalize marijuana, it will inevitably result in widespread drug abuse.”
  6. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): Contrary to this fallacy, an appeal to authority is not primarily based on emotional manipulation but rather the perceived expertise of a person or institution. However, it can intersect with emotions when individuals use respected figures’ opinions to evoke feelings such as trust or admiration.
  7. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): Suggests that something is true because there is no evidence proving otherwise. While not solely reliant on emotional appeals, it can be intertwined when individuals use uncertainty as a means of evoking fear or anxiety.
  8. Pooh-pooh (Dismissive Arrogance): Dismisses an argument without considering its merits but often combines with disdainful attitudes and insults. “That idea is absurd; surely you jest.”
  9. Wishful Thinking Fallacy: Involves the desire for something to be true, rather than assessing evidence objectively. For example, “I’m sure everything will work out perfectly because I feel so positive about it!”
  10. Reductio ad Hitlerum (Faulty Comparison): Attempts to discredit an argument by associating it with Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany, exploiting negative emotions rather than addressing the issue at hand. “Your belief in free speech is like that of a Nazi.”
  11. Playing the Nazi Card (Guilt by Association): Similar to Reductio ad Hitlerum but also includes playing on guilt or shame associated with historical events. This fallacy seeks to undermine an argument based on negative associations rather than logical reasoning.

Conclusion

The appeal to emotions is a pervasive tactic employed in various forms of communication, from political speeches and advertising to personal conversations. While engaging with emotions can be a powerful aspect of persuasion, relying solely on this approach undermines the importance of critical thinking and rational discourse. Recognizing and understanding these fallacies is crucial for fostering healthy discussions and making informed decisions based on sound reasoning.

The appeal to emotions, also known as argumentum ad passiones, is a logical fallacy where an argument seeks to persuade by arousing strong feelings rather than providing rational arguments. This type of appeal falls under the broader category of informal fallacies and specifically pertains to those that manipulate emotions to influence opinion.

Types of Appeals to Emotions

There are several variants of this logical fallacy, each targeting a different emotion:

  1. Appeal to Fear (argumentum ad consequentiam): This occurs when an argument attempts to convince others by inciting fear about the consequences without substantiated evidence. For example, claiming that failing university would result in a catastrophic worldwide collapse due to overpopulation if not for higher education institutions.

  2. Appeal to Guilt: In this variant, emotions like guilt are evoked to manipulate the audience’s judgment. It often involves insinuating that someone is wrong or undeserving of a certain position by appealing to their perceived failings. For instance, stating that an individual advocates for higher taxes because they do not own property may unfairly portray them in a negative light.

  3. Pooh-pooh Fallacy: A combination of straw man and appeal to ridicule fallacies where the argument is dismissed without serious consideration, often trivializing or belittling it with derision. An example would be downplaying someone’s support for Bitcoin by saying that considering its future implications is a waste of time—a form of escapism rather than rational debate.

  4. Appeal to Reducibility (reductio ad Hitlerum): This fallacy involves associating an opposing viewpoint with Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany, insinuating that one’s belief is tainted by a similarly hateful ideology. An example would be claiming someone who dislikes smoking aligns themselves with the atrocities of the Nazis due to their stance against it.

Additional Logical Fallacies Related to Emotional Appeals

While this guide focuses on various appeals to emotions, several other logical fallacies exist that often involve manipulating feelings or emotional responses:

  • Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): This occurs when someone asserts a claim based solely on the opinion of an authority figure, rather than providing evidence.
  • Ad Hominem (argumentum ad hominem): An attack on the character or circumstances of an individual making an argument, instead of addressing their actual claims.
  • False Dilemma (black and white fallacy): Presenting a situation as having only two extreme options when more possibilities exist.
  • Slippery Slope: Suggesting that one action will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences without sufficient evidence for such causality.
  • Hasty Generalization: Making a broad claim based on insufficient or biased evidence, often leading to stereotypical conclusions.

These logical fallacies can all impact the quality and validity of arguments by relying on emotional manipulation rather than sound reasoning and factual support.

phi3:14b-medium-128k-instruct-q6_K

Appeal to emotions is a fallacy that attempts to convince someone by exciting their emotions rather than through rational argumentation. This type of argument falls under the group known as Red Herring Fallacies and includes several specific variants, such as:

  1. Appeal to fear or consequences - making an argument based on inducing fear without providing evidence (e.g., “The Divine Order must exist. If it didn’t, all galaxies would fall on Earth in one apocalypse.”).
  2. Appeal to guilt - linking the opposite point of view with impropriety resulting in feelings of guilt or shame (e.g., “If we don’t start saving for college right after a newborn appears, we might regret it later”).
  3. Appeal to ridicule - showing an opponent’s argument as absurd or humorous instead of proving the point directly (e.g., “Bitcoin as a safe haven? Is that even worth considering?” in response to someone who views Bitcoin as a viable investment option).
  4. Pooh-pooh fallacy - dismissing an argument by waving it away without serious consideration, combining aspects of Straw Man and Appeal to Redicule (e.g., “Bitcoin as a safe haven? Is it even worth considering?” when asked about Bitcoin’s potential as an investment).
  5. Wishful thinking - believing something is true because it pleases the imagination, not based on evidence or reality (e.g., “I believe things will turn out better than forecasted because it makes me feel warm and content”). 6. Playing the Nazi card - attacking someone’s position by associating them with Adolf Hitler due to a shared viewpoint (e.g., “If you’re against smoking, implying that you are a Nazi). Other common logical fallacies include:
  • Appeal to authority
  • Ad Hominem
  • False dilemma
  • Slippery slope
  • Hasty generalization For more information on appeal to emotions and other logical fallacies, refer to the links provided.

The text provides an overview of the logical fallacy known as “appeal to emotions.” This involves convincing someone by stirring up their emotions instead of using rational arguments, and it falls within the red herring fallacies group. Various specific forms include:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): Creating fear about potential outcomes without evidence. Example: “The Divine Order must exist; otherwise, Earth will face apocalypse.”
  2. Appeal to Guilt: Associating the opposition’s viewpoint with guilt-inducing impropriety. Examples include anticipatory, reactive, and existential guilt appeals in various contexts.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule (the horse laugh): Dismissing an argument by showing it as ridiculous or humorous instead of directly proving a point. Example: “Democracy? Why bother when you can have the best of both worlds?”
  4. Pooh-pooh Fallacy (dismissive arrogance): Disregarding an argument as unworthy without serious consideration, combining straw man fallacy and appeal to ridicule tactics. Example: “Bitcoin as a safe haven - Is it even worth considering?”
  5. Wishful Thinking Fallacy: Believing something is true because it’s pleasing or escapist rather than rational evidence-based reality. Example: “I believe things will be better; it makes me feel warm and content.”
  6. Playing the Nazi card (reductio ad Hitlerum): Lowering someone else’s position by associating their view with Adolf Hitler, creating a strong negative emotional appeal.
  7. Other logical fallacies mentioned are:
    • Appeal to Authority
    • Ad Hominem
    • False Dilemma (Black and White Fallacy)
    • Slippery Slope
    • Hasty Generalization

The text also offers additional resources for further information about appeals to emotions.

phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-q8_0

An appeal to emotions is a type of logical fallacy in which someone tries to convince others by arousing their emotions rather than providing rational arguments. This persuasive tactic belongs to the Red Herring Fallacies group and has various specific variants, including:

  1. Appeal to fear or consequences: Presenting a scary outcome without evidence. Example: “The Divine Order must exist; otherwise all celestial bodies would collide in an apocalypse.”
  2. Appeal to guilt: Links the opposite view with impropriety, causing feelings of guilt or responsibility. Examples include Anticipatory Guilt and Existential Guilt Appeals like charity advertisements.
  3. Appeal to ridicule: Making an argument seem absurd by laughter, deflecting from the actual issue at hand. Example: “Democracy is for peasants!”
  4. Playing the Nazi card (Reductio ad Hitlerum): Associating someone’s view with Adolf Hitler to discredit it based on a strong negative connection.
  5. Other fallacies like Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Hasty Generalization are also common in debates but not directly related to appealing to emotions.

Definition: An appeal to emotions, also known as argumentum ad passiones or ‘for the children’, is an attempt to persuade someone by triggering their emotions rather than presenting a rational argument. This fallacy falls under the red herring group of informal logical fallacies and has several specific variants:

Appeal to Fear or Consequences

This occurs when arguments are made based on potential negative outcomes without supporting evidence, such as “The Divine Order must exist. If it didn’t, all the galaxies and planets and comets would fall on Earth in one huge apocalypse.”

Appeal to Guilt

An argument that associates a position with impropriety or guilt can take three forms: Anticipatory Guilt (feeling guilty for future actions), Reactive Guilt (experiencing guilt after an action is taken), and Existential Guilt (a general sense of guilt). For example, “Don’t vote against this policy; think about the children who will suffer.”

Appeal to Anger

This type involves arguments that provoke anger or outrage towards a person, group, or issue. An example might be: “How can you support these policies when they are clearly harming our community?”

Appeal to Pity

These arguments aim at generating sympathy for someone in order to influence opinions or actions. For instance: “Please donate money to help this poor child survive.”

Appeal to Flattery

This type uses compliments to win support, such as “You’re the smartest person here; surely you see why my idea is best.”

Appeal to Ridicule

Arguments that mock or belittle an opposing viewpoint aim to make it seem foolish. Example: “Only a fool would believe in climate change denial nowadays.”

Playing the Nazi card (Reductio ad Hitlerum)

A fallacy where someone is discredited for sharing views with historical figures like Adolf Hitler, regardless of the context or accuracy. For example: “You can’t trust his arguments; he has views similar to those of Hitler.”

Wishful thinking

This variant involves believing something because it feels good rather than being supported by evidence or reality. An example is: “I believe we will reach Mars within the next decade simply because I want that future for humanity.”

Other common logical fallacies include Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem (argument against a person’s character), False Dilemma, and Slippery Slope. More information can be found in the provided resources on informal logical fallacies.

phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-f16

Appeal to Emotions is a logical fallacy where someone tries to convince others by appealing to their emotions rather than presenting rational arguments. This category of fallacies includes several specific variants:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: Arguing that something must be true because its opposite would lead to a negative outcome, without providing evidence for the claim. Example: “The Divine Order must exist; otherwise, all galaxies and planets would fall on Earth in one apocalypse.”
  2. Appeal to Guilt: Linking an opposing view with impropriety or guilt, using three types of guilt - Anticipatory, Reactive, and Existential. Example for Existential Guilt Appeal: “If we don’t start saving on college right after newborn appears, we might not have enough time and end up regretting it later.”
  3. Appeal to Pity: Playing on sympathy or compassion to support an argument without providing relevant evidence. Example: “How can you deny help for these poor children?”
  4. Reductio ad Hitlerum (Playing the Nazi Card): Associating someone’s position with Adolf Hitler, implying that the view is wrong because it was held by a notorious figure.
  5. Appeal to Flattery: Using compliments and praise as evidence for an argument without providing logical reasoning or proof. Example: “You are such a smart person; you surely know this is true.”
  6. Bandwagon Appeal (Argumentum ad Populum): Assuming something must be correct because it’s popular or widely accepted by others.
  7. Appeal to Ridicule: Making fun of an argument instead of addressing its merits, attempting to discredit the viewpoint with mockery and sarcasm. Example: “Oh, sure! Believing in Bigfoot is just as reasonable as believing in aliens.”
  8. Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false (and vice versa).
  9. Appeal to Nature: Arguing that something is good or right simply because it is “natural” or aligns with nature, ignoring the possibility of harmful or negative aspects.
  10. Wishful Thinking Fallacy: Believing in a claim solely based on its desirability rather than any evidence to support it.

These examples showcase how emotions can be manipulated for persuasion, often leading to flawed reasoning and decisions that are not grounded in logic or facts.

An appeal to emotions is a logical fallacy that attempts to convince someone by appealing to their feelings rather than using rational arguments. It includes various specific variants such as:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences - making others fear an outcome without supporting evidence, e.g., “If we don’t study at the university, all galaxies and planets will collapse into a huge apocalypse.”
  2. Appeal to Guilt - connecting opposing views with impropriety that leads to guilt, like anticipating regret for not saving early on college expenses.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule - making the opponent’s argument seem ridiculous or humorous rather than proving their point directly, e.g., “Democracy? Maybe we should give dogs a vote too!”
  4. Appeal to Anger - inspiring anger in oneself or others to make them agree with one’s opinion, such as the argument for stricter gun control laws after mass shootings.
  5. Appeal to Pity - evoking sympathy for someone or something, often leading to a biased conclusion, like supporting an employee solely based on their personal hardships rather than job performance.
  6. Pooh-pooh Fallacy - dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration without addressing its merits, e.g., “Bitcoin as a safe haven? Is it even worth considering?”
  7. Wishful Thinking Fallacy - believing something to be true because it’s pleasing or comforting rather than being based on evidence, such as expecting good weather without checking the forecast.
  8. Playing the Nazi Card (Reductio ad Hitlerum) - lowering someone else’s position by associating them with Adolf Hitler or similar figures to discredit their viewpoint, like accusing anti-smoking advocates of being Nazis because Hitler was also against smoking.

Other common logical fallacies include Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Hasty Generalization.

llama3:8b-instruct-q4_0

The text discusses various logical fallacies that involve appealing to emotions rather than using rational arguments. These fallacies are:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: Scaring someone into accepting a position without evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: Linking an opposing viewpoint to impropriety, making the person feel guilty.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: Presenting an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous to dismiss it.
  4. Appeal to Anger: Inspiring anger in oneself or others to influence their opinions.
  5. Appeal to Spite: Exploiting existing feelings of spite or hatred towards an opponent.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: Using disgust to persuade someone, often by highlighting unpleasant or repulsive aspects.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: Giving excessive compliments to win support for a position.
  8. Appeal to Pity: Eliciting pity from others by presenting oneself as vulnerable or deserving of sympathy.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: Using patriotic feelings to sway opinions, often without considering the facts.
  10. Pooh-pooh Fallacy: Dismissing an argument as unworthy of serious consideration.
  11. Wishful Thinking Fallacy: Believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on evidence.

These fallacies are listed under the broader category of “Appeal to Emotions” and can be used to manipulate or influence others’ opinions and decisions.

The text discusses the concept of “Appeal to Emotions” or “Argumentsum ad Passiones”, which is a fallacy that involves attempting to convince someone by exciting their emotions rather than providing a rational argument. This fallacy is part of the broader category of Red Herring Fallacies.

The text lists several specific variants of this fallacy, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: making someone fear a possible outcome without supporting evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing viewpoint with impropriety and making someone feel guilty.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: showing an opponent’s argument as ridiculous and therefore not reasonable.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger in oneself or the public and using it to make someone agree with one’s point of view.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of spite or hatred towards another party.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: appealing to disgust as a natural reaction to something harmful.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: giving excessive compliments to win support for one’s opinion rather than providing evidence.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that elicits pity in order to support a position, rather than providing evidence.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: appealing to patriotic feelings towards a country, king, state, or family.

The text also discusses the “Pooh-pooh” fallacy, which is a combination of straw man and appeal to ridicule, as well as “Wishful thinking”, which is believing something to be true because it’s pleasing to imagine rather than based on rationality. Finally, it mentions “Playing the Nazi card”, which is a special case of this fallacy that attempts to lower someone else’s position by associating it with Adolf Hitler.

The text concludes by listing other common logical fallacies and providing links for further reading.

llama3:8b-instruct-q8_0

The text discusses the concept of “Appeal to Emotions” in argumentation, which is a fallacy that occurs when an individual attempts to convince someone by exciting their emotions rather than presenting a rational argument. The text categorizes this fallacy into several sub-types, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: Making someone fear a possible outcome without supporting evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: Linking the opposite point of view with impropriety, resulting in feelings of guilt.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: Showing an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous, rather than proving one’s own point.
  4. Appeal to Anger: Inspiring anger towards oneself or others and using it to support one’s position.
  5. Appeal to Spite: Exploiting existing feelings of hatred or spite towards another party.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: Using emotions of disgust to support an argument.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: Giving excessive compliments to win support for one’s opinion.
  8. Appeal to Pity: Telling a story to evoke pity and sympathy, rather than presenting evidence.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: Using patriotic feelings to support an argument.
  10. Pooh-pooh: Dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration.

The text also discusses related concepts such as Wishful Thinking, which is believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, and Playing the Nazi Card, a special case of emotional appeal where someone’s position is lowered by comparing them to Adolf Hitler.

The text explains the concept of “Appeal to Emotions”, a type of fallacy where an argument is made by appealing to emotions rather than providing rational evidence. The article lists several specific variants of this fallacy, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: making someone fear a possible outcome without supporting evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking the opposite point of view with impropriety and making someone feel guilty.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: showing an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous, rather than providing evidence.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger in oneself or others to support a point of view.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred towards an opposing party.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: using disgust as a way to persuade someone, often by highlighting unpleasant facts.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: giving excessive compliments to win support for an opinion.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that elicits pity in others to support a point of view.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: appealing to patriotic feelings towards a country, king, state, or family.
  10. Pooh-pooh Fallacy: dismissing an argument as unworthy of serious consideration.
  11. Wishful Thinking Fallacy: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on evidence.

The article also mentions related logical fallacies, such as “Appeal to Authority”, “Ad Hominem”, and “False Dilemma”. Additionally, it provides links to further resources and information on the topic.

llama3:8b-instruct-fp16

The article discusses the concept of “Appeal to Emotions” or “argumentsum ad passiones”, which is a type of fallacy where an argument attempts to convince someone by exciting their emotions rather than presenting a rational argument. There are several specific variants of this fallacy, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: using fear or the threat of consequences to persuade someone.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing viewpoint with impropriety and evoking feelings of guilt.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: making an opponent’s argument seem ridiculous or humorous, rather than addressing it logically.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger in oneself or others to gain support for a position.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred towards someone or something.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: using disgust as a way to persuade someone against a particular idea or action.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: using excessive compliments to win support for an opinion.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that evokes feelings of pity in others, rather than presenting a logical argument.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: appealing to patriotic feelings towards a country, king, state, or family to gain support.
  10. Pooh-pooh Fallacy: dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration.
  11. Wishful Thinking Fallacy: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on evidence or reality.
  12. Playing the Nazi Card: attempting to discredit someone by linking their views to those of Adolf Hitler.

The article also provides examples and counterarguments for each fallacy, as well as a list of other common logical fallacies.

The text defines an “Appeal to Emotions” as a fallacy where someone attempts to convince another person by evoking emotions rather than presenting rational arguments. There are several specific variants of this fallacy, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: using fear or the threat of consequences to persuade someone.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing viewpoint with impropriety or guilt to make it seem unacceptable.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: presenting an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous, rather than addressing its merits.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger in oneself or others to gain support for a position.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred or resentment towards someone or something.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: using disgust as an emotional appeal, often by highlighting unpleasant or offensive facts.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: using excessive compliments to gain support for a position.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that elicits sympathy from others in order to gain support.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: using patriotic feelings to sway opinion, often without considering the connection between emotion and argument.

The text also mentions other related fallacies, such as:

  • Pooh-pooh: dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration.
  • Wishful thinking: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on evidence or reality.
  • Playing the Nazi card: using a negative association (e.g. with Adolf Hitler) to discredit someone else’s position.

Overall, the text provides a comprehensive overview of various emotional appeals and fallacies that can be used in arguments.

llama3:70b-instruct-q2_K

The text describes various logical fallacies that appeal to emotions rather than presenting rational arguments. These fallacies are:

  1. Appeal to Emotions: convincing someone by exciting their emotions rather than producing a rational argument.

Specific variants of this fallacy include:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: making someone fear a possible outcome without evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing point of view with impropriety, resulting in feelings of guilt.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: showing an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous rather than directly addressing the issue.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger to agree with a point of view.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred or spite.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: using disgust to influence an argument, although this is considered less effective.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: giving excessive compliments to win support rather than presenting evidence.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that evokes pity rather than supporting a position with evidence.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism (Jingoism): appealing to patriotic feelings towards a country, king, or state.
  10. Pooh-pooh fallacy: dismissing an argument as unworthy of serious consideration, combining Straw Man and Appeal to Ridicule.
  11. Wishful thinking: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on rationality or evidence.
  12. Playing the Nazi card (Reductio ad Hitlerum): associating an opposing view with Adolf Hitler to discredit it.

The text also mentions other common logical fallacies, including Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Hasty Generalization.

The text describes various logical fallacies that appeal to emotions rather than rational arguments. These fallacies are categorized into several types, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: attempting to convince someone by making them fear a possible outcome without evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing point of view with impropriety to evoke feelings of guilt.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: showing the opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous, rather than addressing it directly.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger or outrage to influence someone’s opinion.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred or spite towards a group or individual.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: attempting to evoke disgust or revulsion to support an argument.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: using excessive compliments to win support for an opinion.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that evokes sympathy rather than presenting evidence-based arguments.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: appealing to patriotic feelings towards a country, king, or family.
  10. Pooh-pooh fallacy: dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration with a wave of the hand.
  11. Wishful thinking fallacy: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on rationality or evidence.

The text also mentions other logical fallacies, such as Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Hasty Generalization.

llama3:70b-instruct-q6_K

The article discusses the concept of “Appeal to Emotions” as a type of logical fallacy, where an argument is made by evoking emotions rather than presenting rational evidence. This fallacy is part of the broader category of Red Herring Fallacies.

The article identifies several specific variants of Appeal to Emotions, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: making someone fear a possible outcome without supporting evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing viewpoint with impropriety to evoke feelings of guilt.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: presenting an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous, rather than addressing the issue directly.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger in oneself or others to sway opinion.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred or spite to support an argument.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: using disgust as a means to persuade, although this may not be effective.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: using excessive compliments to win support for an opinion.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that evokes sympathy rather than presenting evidence.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: appealing to nationalistic or patriotic feelings without logical connection to the argument.
  10. Pooh-pooh: dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration, often with a combination of Straw Man and Appeal to Ridicule fallacies.
  11. Wishful Thinking: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on evidence or reality.
  12. Playing the Nazi card: associating someone’s view with Adolf Hitler’s views to discredit their argument.

The article also provides links to related topics, such as Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Hasty Generalization, as well as resources for detecting logical fallacies.

The text describes the “Appeal to Emotions” fallacy, which is a type of argument that attempts to convince someone by evoking emotions rather than presenting rational evidence. This fallacy can take many forms, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear: making someone fear a possible outcome without providing supporting evidence.
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing viewpoint with impropriety to induce guilt.
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: portraying an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or humorous rather than addressing the issue directly.
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger in oneself or others to sway opinion.
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of hatred or spite towards a particular group or individual.
  6. Appeal to Disgust: using disgusting or disturbing images or information to influence opinion.
  7. Appeal to Flattery: using excessive compliments to win support rather than presenting evidence.
  8. Appeal to Pity: telling a story that evokes sympathy rather than providing logical argumentation.
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: appealing to nationalistic or patriotic feelings rather than presenting rational arguments.
  10. Pooh-pooh Fallacy: dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration, often with a combination of Straw Man and Appeal to Ridicule fallacies.
  11. Wishful Thinking: believing something is true because it’s pleasing to imagine, rather than based on evidence or reality.
  12. Playing the Nazi Card: attempting to discredit someone’s viewpoint by associating it with Adolf Hitler or Nazism.

The text also provides links to related logical fallacies, such as Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Hasty Generalization, as well as resources for further learning on informal logical fallacies.

llama3-gradient:8b-instruct-1048k-q8_0

Here is a summary of the text:

The article discusses “Appeal to Emotions”, which is an informal logical fallacy where one attempts to convince someone through emotional means rather than evidence-based reasoning. It lists and explains several specific types of this fallacy, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences (which presents potential consequences without evidence),
  2. Appeal to Guilt (using guilt to force agreement with your point of view),
  3. Appeal to Ridicule (dismissing someone else’s argument as ridiculous),
  4. Appeal to Anger (making others angry),
  5. Appeal to Spite,
  6. Appeal to Disgust,
  7. Appeal to Flattery (using excessive compliments to win people over), and
  8. Appeal to Pity (eliciting sympathy for oneself or the opposite point of view).

The article also mentions three other fallacies that are often classified under this category: Pooh-pooh (where someone dismisses another’s argument as unworthy of serious consideration, but without reason), Wishful Thinking (believing something because it is pleasing rather than based on evidence and reality), and Playing the Nazi card (presenting a position as being similar to Adolf Hitler).

The “Appeal to Emotions” is a type of fallacy where an argument or conclusion is made with the intention of evoking emotions in order to persuade, rather than by presenting logical evidence or reasoning. It’s part of the broader Red Herring Fallacies category and has several specific forms including:

  1. Appeal to Fear: making someone afraid of a possible outcome without any supporting facts. Example: “The Divine Order must exist. If it didn’t, all the galaxies and planets and comets would fall on Earth in one huge apocalypse.”
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking the opposite view with an immoral act that will make people feel guilty or ashamed
  3. Appeal to Anger: inspiring negative emotions like anger towards oneself or others in order to gain acceptance of a point of view. Example: “How can we trust this government who keeps us all in quarantine!”
  4. Appeal to Spite: using existing feelings of spite and hate
  5. Appeal to Disgust: trying to disgust someone into agreeing with one’s position rather than presenting evidence.
  6. Appeal to Flattery: trying to convince others by using excessive, insincere compliments
  7. Appeal to Pity: appealing for sympathy by making people feel sorry for a situation or person
  8. Appeal to Patriotism: showing someone that their argument is anti-patriotic in order to gain acceptance of the opposing view. Example: “Of course the war in Iraq is justified! Support our troops!”
  9. Pooh-pooh fallacy: dismissing an argument as ridiculous or not worth considering
  10. Wishful thinking: believing something because it’s pleasing, rather than based on evidence or reality

The text does not discuss playing the Nazi card as a subcategory of appeal to emotions but it could be considered one by some people since “Guilt by Association” and “Appeal to Emotions” share similarities.

llama3-gradient:8b-instruct-1048k-fp16

Here is a summary of the text:

The Appeal to Emotions fallacy is a type of Red Herring Fallacy in which one attempts to convince someone by exciting their emotions rather than providing logical arguments. It can take many forms, including:

  1. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: making someone fear a possible outcome
  2. Appeal to Guilt: linking an opposing view to impropriety and the feeling of guilt
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: showing an argument as ridiculous in order to disqualify it
  4. Appeal to Anger: inspiring anger rather than providing logical arguments
  5. Appeal to Spite: exploiting existing feelings of spite towards another party
  6. Appeal to Disgust: appealing to the natural reaction of disgust due to its unpleasantness
  7. Appeal to Flattery: giving excessive compliments in an attempt to gain support
  8. Appeal to Pity: creating a story that makes people feel bad for you rather than supporting your position, or the Argument from Compassion which encourages agreement based on principles
  9. Appeal to Patriotism: linking a position with patriotic feelings towards one’s country, family, or state
  10. Pooh-Pooh: dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration

Additionally, there are two more variants: Playing the Nazi card, where an opposing view is discredited by linking it to Hitler and his beliefs; and Wishful thinking, which involves believing something because it is pleasing or pleasant.

Here is a summary of the text:

An Appeal to Emotions (also known as Emotive Fallacy or Emotional Fallacy) is a type of fallacy where one tries to convince someone by arousing their emotions instead of using logical argumentation. Here are some examples, including sub-types of this fallacy:

  1. Appeal to Fear/Consequences: Making an argument based on the fear of possible consequences without any evidence.
    • “The Divine Order must exist. If it didn’t, all the galaxies and planets and comets would fall on Earth in one huge apocalypse.”
  2. Appeal to Guilt: Using guilt as a way to make your point, either by making someone anticipate feeling guilty for not doing something (Anticipatory Guilt) or making someone feel bad about themselves if they don’t do something (Reactive Guilt) or appealing to an existential sense of responsibility.
    • “If we don’t start saving on the college right after the baby appears, we’ll be ashamed later.”
  3. Appeal to Ridicule: Showing that an opponent’s argument is ridiculous rather than providing a logical counterargument.
  4. Appeal to Anger: Inciting anger as a way of making someone agree with you.
  5. Appeal to Spite: Using the existing hatred between two parties as a reason for why your point should be accepted.
    • “Why shouldn’t prisoners do hard labor? The place is full of trash!”
  6. Appeal to Disgust: Making a statement disgusting in order to make someone accept what you say.
    • “Do you see these torturous conditions on animals in factory farms?”
  7. Appeal to Flattery: Giving excessive compliments as an attempt to win support for your opinion.
  8. Appeal to Wishful Thinking: Believing something is true because it’s pleasant to imagine or wish it were, rather than based on evidence or reality.
  9. Appeal to Playing the Nazi Card (also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum): Using someone else’s point because of a negative association with Adolf Hitler.

Examples:

  • “I believe that things will turn out better than the forecast says because it makes me feel warm and content.”
  • Since Hitler was against smoking, implying that someone who is against smoking is a Nazi.

dolphin-llama3:8b-256k-v2.9-fp16

The text provided is a detailed summary of different types of fallacies related to emotional appeals, the purpose of which is to manipulate people’s emotions and beliefs rather than providing solid evidence or rational arguments.

To address your question about “What are logical fallacies?” and provide an explanation in simple terms:

Logical fallacies refer to errors in reasoning that can lead someone to a wrong conclusion. They are called fallacies because they involve a false or misleading argument,. The text you provided presents various types of emotional appeals fallacies which exploit people’s emotions for the purpose of convincing them instead of providing strong and rational arguments.

Here is a summary list of logical fallacies mentioned in the text:

  1. Appeal to Emotions: Trying to convince someone based on their feelings rather than providing evidence or logic.
  2. Appeal to Fear or Consequences: Scaring others into accepting your position without presenting solid proof.
  3. Appeal to Guilt: Using guilt as a tool to make others accept a particular viewpoint by making them feel responsible for something negative.
  4. Appeal to Ridicule: Making the opposing view seem ridiculous and unbelievable, the opposite of what should be true or logical.

These fallacies aim to exploit people’s emotions instead of presenting solid reasoning.

The text provided does not pertain to a specific question or prompt. It appears as an extensive explanation of various logical fallacies, and a brief mention of related concepts such as Appeal to Emotions, public appeal, and related emotions. The response would be helpful if the goal is to provide clarification on these fallacies. However, the text itself does not offer a direct answer to any prompt or question.

If you have a specific question about logical fallacies, please let me know so I can better assist you in providing an appropriate response.