- AD HOMINEM
Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument.
Example: “Your idea is ridiculous because you’ve always been terrible at math!”
Response: “My math skills don’t affect the validity of my argument.” - STRAW MAN
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: “Oh, so you’re saying we should just let criminals go free?”
Response: “That’s not what I said. I’m advocating for reforms, not removing laws.” - APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
Claiming something is true because an authority says so.
Example: “This has to be right because Dr. Smith said it was!”
Response: “Let’s focus on the evidence, not just the authority figure’s opinion.” - FALSE DILEMMA (BLACK-AND-WHITE FALLACY)
Presenting only two options when more exist.
Example: “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.”
Response: “There are more nuanced positions than just those two extremes.” - SLIPPERY SLOPE
Claiming one action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events.
Example: “If we allow this law, next thing you know, society will collapse!”
Response: “Let’s evaluate this law on its own merit instead of assuming worst-case scenarios.” - CIRCULAR REASONING
Using the conclusion as part of the premise.
Example: “Why is this true? Because it just is.”
Response: “That doesn’t explain why it’s true. Let’s explore the actual reasoning.” - HASTY GENERALIZATION
Drawing a conclusion from insufficient evidence.
Example: “All cats are mean. My neighbor’s cat hissed at me.”
Response: “That’s one cat. You can’t generalize all cats based on one encounter.” - POST HOC (FALSE CAUSE)
Assuming correlation equals causation.
Example: “I wore my lucky socks, and we won the game. It must be the socks!”
Response: “Winning likely had more to do with skill than your socks.” - APPEAL TO EMOTION
Manipulating emotions instead of presenting facts.
Example: “If you don’t agree, think of how sad it’ll make everyone!”
Response: “Let’s base our decision on evidence, not just emotional reactions.” - RED HERRING
Distracting with irrelevant information.
Example: “Why worry about climate change when there’s corruption in politics?”
Response: “Both issues are important. Let’s focus on climate change for now.” - APPEAL TO TRADITION
Arguing something is better because it’s traditional.
Example: “We’ve always done it this way, so it must be the best way.”
Response: “Just because it’s traditional doesn’t mean it’s effective.” - BANDWAGON FALLACY
Assuming something is true because many people believe it.
Example: “Everyone’s buying this product, so it must be the best!”
Response: “Popularity doesn’t necessarily mean quality.” - FALSE EQUIVALENCE
Equating two unrelated things.
Example: “If we ban smoking, we should ban fast food—it’s unhealthy too!”
Response: “Smoking and fast food have different impacts and contexts.” - NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
Dismissing exceptions to a generalization.
Example: “No true fan of this team would ever criticize them!”
Response: “Criticism doesn’t negate someone’s loyalty.” - APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false.
Example: “Aliens must exist because no one’s proven they don’t.”
Response: “A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of existence.” - EQUIVOCATION
Using ambiguous language to mislead.
Example: “Fine art is priceless, so this art should cost nothing!”
Response: “‘Priceless’ means valuable, not free.” - APPEAL TO NATURE
Arguing something is good because it’s natural.
Example: “It’s natural, so it must be healthy!”
Response: “Not everything natural is good—think poison ivy.” - FALSE ANALOGY
Comparing two things that aren’t truly comparable.
Example: “Running a country is just like running a business.”
Response: “Countries and businesses operate under vastly different principles.” - GAMBLER’S FALLACY
Believing past events influence future outcomes in unrelated scenarios.
Example: “I’ve lost five times, so I’m bound to win the next one!”
Response: “Each outcome is independent—luck doesn’t accumulate.” - PERSONAL INCREDULITY
Rejecting something because it’s difficult to understand.
Example: “I can’t imagine how that works, so it must be false.”
Response: “Just because it’s complex doesn’t mean it’s untrue.” - BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFT
Making the other person prove your claim wrong.
Example: “Prove to me that ghosts don’t exist!”
Response: “The burden of proof is on you to prove they do.” - TU QUOQUE (YOU TOO FALLACY)
Dismissing criticism by pointing out hypocrisy.
Example: “How can you lecture me about saving money when you spend so much?”
Response: “My spending doesn’t invalidate my advice.” - ANACHRONISM
Attributing modern concepts to historical events.
Example: “Ancient Romans were probably eco-conscious!”
Response: “That idea didn’t exist in their context.” - APPEAL TO PITY
Manipulating others with guilt or sympathy.
Example: “You have to pass me—I’ll lose my scholarship if I fail!”
Response: “Grades should reflect performance, not circumstances.” - APPEAL TO CONSEQUENCES
Arguing something must be true because the alternative is undesirable.
Example: “We can’t believe that—if it’s true, the consequences are terrifying!”
Response: “Truth isn’t determined by how we feel about it.” - COMPOSITION FALLACY
Assuming what’s true of the parts is true of the whole.
Example: “Every player on this team is talented, so the team must be unbeatable.”
Response: “Talent doesn’t always mean teamwork.” - DIVISION FALLACY
Assuming what’s true of the whole is true of the parts.
Example: “This organization is amazing, so every employee must be perfect.”
Response: “An organization’s reputation doesn’t guarantee individual behavior.” - LOADED QUESTION
Asking a question that traps the respondent.
Example: “Have you stopped lying to your partner yet?”
Response: “Your question assumes a false premise.” - MIDDLE GROUND FALLACY
Assuming the truth lies between two extremes.
Example: “One side says 2+2=4, the other says 2+2=5—so it must be 4.5.”
Response: “Not every argument has a middle-ground compromise.” - APPEAL TO QUANTITY
Assuming more is better.
Example: “This movie has the most actors, so it must be the best!”
Response: “Quantity doesn’t equal quality.” - FALSE BALANCE
Giving equal weight to opposing sides regardless of evidence.
Example: “Let’s hear both sides—flat Earth and round Earth deserve equal debate!”
Response: “Evidence matters—one side is scientifically proven.” - CHERRY PICKING
Highlighting only the evidence that supports your argument.
Example: “This one study supports my claim, so it must be true!”
Response: “What about the dozens of studies that contradict it?” - ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Assuming lack of evidence means confirmation.
Example: “No one’s proven this wrong, so it must be true.”
Response: “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” - APPEAL TO POPULARITY (AD POPULUM)
Arguing something is true because it’s widely believed.
Example: “Millions of people think this diet works, so it must be effective!”
Response: “Popularity doesn’t guarantee accuracy or effectiveness.” - FALSE CAUSE (CUM HOC)
Assuming two events occurring together must be related.
Example: “Every time I wear this shirt, it rains—it must be cursed!”
Response: “Correlation isn’t causation—there’s no evidence your shirt controls the weather.” - ARGUMENTUM AD FUTURUM (APPEAL TO THE FUTURE)
Claiming something is true because it will be proven later.
Example: “Science will prove this theory eventually, so it must be true.”
Response: “We can only assess claims based on current evidence.” - TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY
Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a preconception.
Example: “This town has more centenarians, so the water here must be magical.”
Response: “That’s ignoring other factors like genetics or lifestyle.” - ARGUMENT TO MODERATION
Assuming compromise between two extremes is always the truth.
Example: “One person says the Earth is flat, another says it’s round—so it must be a dome.”
Response: “Sometimes, one side is simply wrong.” - ARGUMENT FROM FINAL CONSEQUENCES
Assuming something is true or false based on its perceived outcomes.
Example: “If this medicine works, we’ll save lives, so it must work.”
Response: “Effectiveness should be proven, not assumed.” - FAULTY ANALOGY
Making an irrelevant comparison to prove a point.
Example: “Running a marathon is just like running a company—both require endurance.”
Response: “While there are similarities, they operate in vastly different contexts.” - SELF-SEALING ARGUMENT
Making a claim that’s impossible to disprove.
Example: “You only disagree because you don’t understand it.”
Response: “Disagreement doesn’t equal misunderstanding—let’s discuss the facts.” - OVERGENERALIZATION
Making a sweeping claim from limited data.
Example: “All teenagers are lazy because my neighbor’s kid never does chores.”
Response: “One example isn’t enough to generalize about an entire group.” - APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM)
Using threats or pressure to enforce acceptance.
Example: “If you don’t agree, you’ll regret it later.”
Response: “Let’s focus on reasoned arguments, not intimidation.” - FALLACY OF RELATIVE PRIVATION (NOT AS BAD AS)
Dismissing a problem because it’s not the worst possible.
Example: “Why worry about your job when some people don’t even have food?”
Response: “Different issues can exist simultaneously and still deserve attention.” - DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
Assuming that the absence of one condition negates the entire argument.
Example: “If it’s raining, the ground is wet. It’s not raining, so the ground must be dry.”
Response: “The ground could still be wet for other reasons, like sprinklers.” - AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Confusing cause and effect.
Example: “If I’m rich, I’ll have a big house. I have a big house, so I must be rich.”
Response: “A big house doesn’t necessarily mean wealth—there are other factors.” - APPEAL TO PURITY
Excluding counterexamples to preserve a universal claim.
Example: “No real artist would sell their work for profit.”
Response: “Many successful artists sell their work—it doesn’t negate their artistry.” - IGNORING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Making a claim and expecting others to disprove it.
Example: “This diet works—prove me wrong!”
Response: “The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.” - SCOPE SHIFT FALLACY
Changing the argument’s focus to avoid addressing the original point.
Example: “We’re discussing environmental policies, but let’s talk about crime rates instead.”
Response: “Let’s stick to the original topic before moving to unrelated issues.” - ARGUMENT BY REPETITION
Repeating a claim without providing evidence.
Example: “It’s true because I’ve said it a hundred times!”
Response: “Repetition doesn’t make an unsupported claim valid.”
