User blog comment:LegoI3rickI3uilder/Debate:Amount of Admins/@comment-4845243-20130709154148/@comment-4845243-20130709164931

So you made up the numbers, meaning your argument is based of of non-facts, and it once more becomes merely a hasty generalization.

Pure logic? Could you prove this? If you make an argument using fallacies, then it is a weak argument, because fallacies are by definition unhelpful or invalid arguments. It is true that the teasing thing wasn't part of your main argument, but changing the definition of losing my reputation was. It changed the conclusion of your argument when I disproved the broader conclusion, thus a no true Scotsman.

As for the rest of your argument, it is reduced to a hasty generalization, which is indeed a fallacy also called "apriorism". So your argument is as a whole incredibly weak.