Well, agree to disagree then.

I never stated there was ultimate truth.

Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.

Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.

philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.

Yes, and that structured, "valid" manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree "philosophy is just a means to an end."

On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.

Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.

No, kids are taught that it's a fallacy. If your parents explained it as "it's not polite," rather than "it's nonsense," that's on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I've been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).

By 'previous information,' what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It's not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don't make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can't communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you're neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.

it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully

like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.

This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You've spent days arguing against this.

Here's my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:

Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌

Your response:

i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you’re educated in the field of fallacies, you’re basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)

another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you’re doing, it’s sort of cyclic in nature like that. It’s interesting in theoretical thought though, i’ll give you that one

But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼‍♀️ Wouldn't have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.