My favorite "arguments" that Pro Solo Queue players use, and the corresponding logical fallacies.
I. "[Riot will now self destruct, just like Blizzard]"
Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either.
A: Implementation of Solo Queue (some even say: "Riot's attitude")
Z: Out of Business, dead game
II. "[Riot hates its veteran players, they refuse to listen to us]"
Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand.
Equates "veteran players" with "refusal to listen to us," on Riot's behave, even though there's no inherent connection between the two.
III. "[Look at all these threads!, look at the youtube dislikes. We ARE the majority]"
Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.
Why insufficient or biased evidence? They are... Voluntary Response Samples
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/biasedsampling.html
IV. "[demanding proof as your only recourse for arguing for Riot here is getting pretty damn tiring.]"
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
Switching the discussion away from the fact that you don't have evidence and focus instead on the fact that I'm beating a dead horse (your argument).
V. "[If you're for DQ you are boosting and smurfing]"
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
Assuming that's why they are for DQ, and that all pro DQ boost and or are smurfs
VI. "[Riot just assumes that the majority want DQ]"
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
Assuming that's why they made their decision, and assumes they are the minority
VII. "[Blizzard implemented DQ and then they went crashing!]"
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.'
VIII. "[You're either for DQ or against DQ]"
Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.
IX. "[There is some bias for sure, people who dislike something tend to be much more vocal about it than those who like something. However when it is such a large percentage of topics you can draw a conclusion from that.]"
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
You can't avoid the issue that it's a BIASED SAMPLE via VOLUNTARY RESPONSE, by stating that "[when it (Pro Solo Queue) is such a large percentage of topics, (BIASED SAMPLES), you can draw a conclusion from that.]"
No. You can't draw a conclusion from that.. because it's BIASED! That's the whole point of it being biased;
X. "[Solo queue is what most people want. I know this because the people that want solo queue have posted their opinions on it.]"
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.
Logical Fallacies:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/
Did I miss any?
