One robot makes arguments, the second points out the inherent logical fallacy in each one.
I have met a few people, and I conclude that all humans are ugly, evil, and smell like socks. [HASTY GENERALIZATION: you have not studied enough examples for such a conclusion.]
You say we should work alongside humans, but what about the human that short-circuited my friend? [RED HERRING: that is unfortunate, but it is irrelevant and distracting from the main argument.]
If we act nice to the humans now, soon they will demand constant back rubs. [SLIPPERY SLOPE: the first event will not necessarily lead to such an extreme result.]
All humans start out as incompetent babies, so they must grow up to become incompetent adults. [GENETIC FALLACY: you cannot judge a thing based on its origins.]
Robots are better leaders because of superior leadership skills. [CIRCULAR ARGUMENT: you are restating your point instead of proving it.]
Where is your robot pride? [AD POPULUM: you are appealing to my emotional circuits instead of presenting facts.]
Why do you hate robots so much? [STRAW MAN: you are attacking a point of view that is not my own.]
The humans who make me do math for them are worse than MagmaDroid, Melter of Hard Drives! [MORAL EQUIVALENCE: your comparison is unfair and inaccurate.]
It is better to destroy the humans than to let the humans destroy us. [EITHER/OR: you are oversimplifying. There are more than two possible outcomes.]
Those evil humans need to be stopped! [BEGGING THE CLAIM: you must prove they are evil before using it in your argument.]
I met a human, then I began malfunctioning. Humans are to blame! [POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: just because B followed A does not mean that A caused B.]
Now, here at the end of the page, Refuting Bot takes a swing:
I propose that you should not be debating while you are malfunctioning. [AD HOMINEM: that is attacking me and not my arguments!]
