| Display title | Begging the Question |
| Default sort key | Begging the Question |
| Page length (in bytes) | 4,612 |
| Namespace ID | 0 |
| Page ID | 104278 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | m>Import Bot |
| Date of page creation | 21:27, 1 November 2013 |
| Latest editor | HeneryVII (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 23:00, 29 August 2022 |
| Total number of edits | 17 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | Also called "Petitio principii", this is "proving" that something is true by taking your conclusion as one of your premises, usually done implicitly rather than explicitly. Few people are fooled by having your conclusion as your only premise, as in "Joe is mad at Jill, therefore Joe is mad at Jill.". Such arguments are called tautologies and are valid, and sound if the premises are true, but utterly meaningless. Put broadly, this fallacy applies to any argument where one or more premises are at least as contentious as the conclusion itself, and for the same reasons, such as: |