Forums → WEPR → Guide | Fallacies in Arguments

What is a fallacy? The Introductions

These are the wrongs in an argument. They are often referred to as fake or deceptive types of arguments. Though sometimes arguments can be fallacious unintentionally, they are still arguably (to a certain extent) wrong. By pointing out fallacious statements, you can win whole arguments, or just avoid losing all together. This is actually very important in debating, and seeing as to how debating is a pretty big thing here, I decided to show everyone a piece of Critical Thinking and how you can seem like an expert debater (or just how to win arguments in swift words).

There is a long list of types of fallacies ahead, but even skimming through most of them grants you a lot of knowledge. Let's get started. These are mainly based on Logical fallacies. I left some of the fallacies that fall under other fallacies out because going into detail would be much more confusing than it should be for people to understand. After all, this isn't a a whole lesson on it, and I'm not a professor.

A lot of this came from my textbook knowledge from a course I took on critical thinking, but I had also done some further research on it. Covering the areas I know, and areas I had forgotten or did not know. Nevertheless, I tried to keep it as simple yet, helpful as possible.

Types of Fallacies

-- Ad Hominem Argument: This is the fallacy that can also be known as "personal attack." This is an attempt in arguing against someone through character or reputation. An example is "Mr. Tommas is greedy, of course he's the robber!"

-- Appeal to Closure: A tricky one to understand, this fallacy is where an argument is forced to be concluded, no matter how questionable it may seem, just to satisfy or give "closure" to those who are affected by it.

-- Appeal to Heaven: This fallacy is when it is stated in an argument that (a) God supports, approves, or ordered the actions or statements in ones standpoint. Example: "We are taking your land because God has given it to us". You can already see why it is not logical at all. (remember, this is all logically speaking.)

-- Appeal to Pity: A fallacy where the audience is urged to support the underdog. "My cute, little kitten was eaten by his large German Shepherd!"

-- Appeal to Tradition: The fallacy also commonly known as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is an argument that supports that something is right just because it has always been that way. "The word irregardless should be in the dictionary because people always use it."

-- Argument From Consequences: Arguing that something is false because of its consequences. Example: "Docter, I can't have cancer! I won't be able to live until I'm a hundred years old!"

-- Argument From Ignorance: Arguing that something is false because we don't or will never know if it is either true or false. Example: "The evolution theory is not true because we weren't there to see it."

-- Argument From Motives: Stating that an argument is invalid because of the questionable motives of the person stating these arguments. Example: Even though what Hitler did was morally wrong, the Jews did control a big portion of Germany's economy, he wasn't wrong about that just because his motives were to exterminate them.

-- Bandwagon: Arguing that something is right just because majority supports it. "Nike is better than Adidas because more people use their shoes."

-- Begging the Question: Also known as "Circular Reasoning." Arguing that something is correct be repeating the same thing in different words. Example: "God exists because the bible said so." Example 2: "I am the leader because I have the gun. I have the gun because I am the leader."

-- The Complex Question: Asking for a conclusion to something that first needs to be analyzed properly. Example: "Just answer me: Yes or No."

-- False Dilemma: Also known as Either-Or Reasoning, it is falsely offering only two possible outcomes even though there are more options to choose from. Example: "You're either with me, or against me."

-- Equivocation: Purposely failing to define one's terms. Or deliberately using words in a different sense from what the audience would understand. Example: "This fiend has committed acts of inhuman brutality. Human rights don't apply to inhuman fiends."

-- Essentializing: Arguing that what something is will always be that, and that's all it will ever be. Example: "All terrorists are monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be 100."

-- False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. Example: "Just like how my phone needs to charge, I need you to be with me."

-- The Half Truth: Deliberately missing out on important parts of an argument. "Example: This is very great country to live in because everything is so cheap." The statement misses out on the quality of everything in that certain country.

-- Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand. Example: "I'm bad at guitar because the government is not funding good musical education."

-- Overgeneralization: Incorrectly applying certain cases to all. Example: "These two students puked all over my front lawn last night, it just goes to show how irresponsible college students are."

-- Political Correctness: Assuming that the nature of something can be changed by changing its name. Example: Calling "Victims", "Survivors" instead.

-- Post Hoc Argument: Arguing that one thing is the cause of another because it came before or at the same time. Example: "Chuck Norris was born a day before WWII ended, therefore he was the cause of its end."

-- Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. Example: "In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I'll cut your taxes!"

-- Reductionism: Oversimplifying something to make it seem what it isn't. Also known as sloaganism because many slogans have been used to appeal to the less educated. Example: "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit."

-- Scare Tactic: Using fear in particular to solidify or support your argument. Example: "If you don't take these medications you will die."

-- Slippery Slope: The fallacy of assuming that one thing always leads to another. Example: "If you both go out for coffee, you will end up getting married someday."

-- Snow Job: The action of proving a claim by giving the audience an immense amount of irrelevant facts.

-- Testimonial: Using a respected/well-known figure to support your claim even if he/she is not an expert in what you are talking about. Example: Using Cristiano Ronaldo's statement; "Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player." to support your claim that Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player.

-- Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: Assuming or jumping to conclusion that one thing exists if the other does. Example: "My brother now wears something on his headnand grew out his beard. He is definitely a Muslim."

-- Strawman: A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is. The rebuttal for the argument never actually touches the real target of the argument. Example:
"1. Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
2. Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
3. Trinitarianism is false."

-- Moving the goalposts: Dismissing the evidence for a claim because it does not meet a progressively greater demand for evidence. Example: "Sorry, but your 'missing link' is just one small piece of the puzzle. You haven't proven that this relates to either of the two groups. Why haven't you found those missing links?" (repeated for each subsequent piece of evidence).

Conclusions and Applying Knowledge into Arguments

By knowing what fallacies are, and bringing them into your intellectual arsenal, you can see through fake or wrong arguments and attack on that. there are many ways to look at an argument, and if counter reasoning isn't one at the moment, you can analyze it's structure and see if there is anything wrong with it. Think of it like adding an additional spell to your shortcuts. Or having a new weapon specialized in doing what your usual weapon cannot do.

You can even analyze your own arguments before posting and see the angles in which people can counter them. You can create near flawless, if not perfect, arguments which are hard to rebuttal. Fallacies play a big role in debating, and most of the time, people overlook the structure of their opponents arguments.

Hope I was some sort of help. Have a nice day!