arguman.org is an argument analysis platform.

It is okay to lie to support your argument

Yes it did. Honest.

Poisoning The Well

Lying to support an argument

Positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups in employment and education is immoral

What is moral depends on ur moral philosophy. A utilitarian could defensibly argue that discriminating against white ppl in favor of black people to correct a major discrimination-induced wrong like the racial achievement gap is ultimately moral.

Begging The Question

This assumes that a utilitarian would argue such, and you have not explained why correcting such a situation would be a utilitarian goal. Indeed, the opposite might be the case.

Positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups in employment and education is immoral

Existing wrongs and imbalances can not be - in reasonable time - fixed by means of equal opportunities (level playing field). Therefore positive discrimination is a necessary lesser evil.

Begging The Question

This assumes that it is necessary and possible to "fix" such "existing wrongs and imbalances," and that it is necessary or possible to enforce a "level playing field," while leaving such a situation undefined.

Positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups in employment and education is immoral

Positive discrimination is effective in balancing existing inequalities in employment, pay and access to education.

Irrelevant Conclusion

That may or may not be the case, but it does not address the premise that positive discrimination is immoral. You may argue that such effects offset the immorality of positive discrimination, but you have not done so.

Positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups in employment and education is immoral

Disadvantaged groups suffer or have suffered from discrimination within a culture which created inequalities in employment, pay and access to education.

Argument To Pity

This is beside the point of the original premise. If you wish to argue that, because some people are at a disadvantage, positive discrimination is not immoral, you may do so, but you have not done so here.

Positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups in employment and education is immoral

If positive discrimination is indeed immoral, replacing old wrongs with new wrongs is immoral.

Begging The Question

While I agree with the conclusion, this is begging the question, assuming that wrongs cannot be righted by, shall we say, opposite wrongs. Many do not recognize this, and therefore the case needs to be made.

Men have life somewhat better than women

That's only because men, in general, aren't droning on about our problems. We fix them. It is mainly due to our ability to not care about a lot of things. Not because we have it "easier," but because we understand that things happen, and sometimes they suck.

Argument Against TheMan

I believe this person's argument could fit multiple fallacies. However, due to the lack of support from a (meaningful) source combined with the inflammatory and insulting language used, I decided to list it as an argument against the man.

Men have life somewhat better than women

Compared to what? An actual scholarly article? The direct source of facts? I strongly disagree.

Appeal To Authority

The fact that this person's source was a 'scholarly article' does not inherently support their point; especially when said article merely asserts without supporting.

Men have life somewhat better than women

That misogyny is a big problem, doesn’t mean it compose the vast majority of sexism, and that misandry isn’t equally big.

Begging The Question

You have not provided any evidence to support the idea that misandry is as big of an issue; you simply state that it could be as big of an issue

Men have life somewhat better than women

Your source is wikipedia. That is all.

Poisoning The Well

Not sure if this is the right kind of fallacy, but basically, listing where information came from does not inherently invalidate that information