Strawman Fallacy: Despite being an Armor-Piercing Question to the CMC, Rumble's question about the last time Apple Bloom used her potion-making abilities falls under the "accent" clause, changing the question to ask when instead of focusing on the fact that she has (because doing so would invalidate his point right off the bat). In addition, Apple Bloom may not remember herself, but she has done it and proved decent at it multiple times in the past — in "The Cutie Pox", "Hearts and Hooves Day", and "Twilight Time" — and even the accent question could be easily refuted if Rumble even bothered to ask Twilight Sparkle or Zecora about it.
This doesn't count as a Strawman. Apple Bloom claims she still makes potions with Zecora, the plain meaning being that she does it frequently enough to make the claim. (Saying "I read books" is not a fair statement if I only read two short books in the past five years. In fact, Apple Bloom claiming that doing something just once or twice is sufficient for cutie marks to not hinder doing that thing would be unfairly strawmanning Rumble's argument.)
In debate, the opposing side's arguments should be interpreted with a degree of generosity. Rumble's claims of "no more" and "will erase" are clearly hyperbole. His argument is that a cutie mark will heavily limit other interests, to the point of being oppressive, not that it will make a pony completely incapable of ever doing anything else ever again.
Rumble's question to Apple Bloom carries the implicit meaning, "If you make potions often enough to make your claim, then you should remember the last time you did that." That's a reasonable argument to make. Apple Bloom responds that she's been too busy helping others with cutie marks, which supports Rumble's argument perfectly: Apple Bloom's cutie mark is hindering her potion-making, to the point that the frequency is so low that the last occurrence is too distant to even remember.
Rumble not asking other people (Zecora or Twilight) who might give a better counter-argument or better evidence does not constitute a Strawman Fallacy, either. "The Cutie Pox", "Hearts and Hooves Day", and "Twilight Time" all happened before Apple Bloom's cutie mark, and so are irrelevant.
I'm removing this entry:
This doesn't count as a Strawman. Apple Bloom claims she still makes potions with Zecora, the plain meaning being that she does it frequently enough to make the claim. (Saying "I read books" is not a fair statement if I only read two short books in the past five years. In fact, Apple Bloom claiming that doing something just once or twice is sufficient for cutie marks to not hinder doing that thing would be unfairly strawmanning Rumble's argument.)
In debate, the opposing side's arguments should be interpreted with a degree of generosity. Rumble's claims of "no more" and "will erase" are clearly hyperbole. His argument is that a cutie mark will heavily limit other interests, to the point of being oppressive, not that it will make a pony completely incapable of ever doing anything else ever again.
Rumble's question to Apple Bloom carries the implicit meaning, "If you make potions often enough to make your claim, then you should remember the last time you did that." That's a reasonable argument to make. Apple Bloom responds that she's been too busy helping others with cutie marks, which supports Rumble's argument perfectly: Apple Bloom's cutie mark is hindering her potion-making, to the point that the frequency is so low that the last occurrence is too distant to even remember.
Rumble not asking other people (Zecora or Twilight) who might give a better counter-argument or better evidence does not constitute a Strawman Fallacy, either. "The Cutie Pox", "Hearts and Hooves Day", and "Twilight Time" all happened before Apple Bloom's cutie mark, and so are irrelevant.