Fallacies

Abusive Ad Hominem

Fallacies of audience

Sidetracks the issues by attacking the person. The fallacy distracts from the real argument by drawing attention to personal problems that have nothing to do with the argument. This fallacy makes the false assumption that an imperfect person can say nothing correct.

Tu Quo Que

Fallacies of audience

Attempts to discredit an argument, based on a person's hypocrisy. The fallacy makes the unnecessary assumption that the advice giver must also be an advice follower force argument to be covenant. The fact is that if we had to be perfect in order to give direction or make an argument, we'd all be disqualified. A person's failure to live up to his own recommendations or standards does not engage those recommendations or standards.

Ad Populum (Band Wagon or Appeal to Popularity)

Fallacies of audience

Convinces by arguing and ideas popularity. The foul scene says that what's popular is what's right. If everyone is doing it, then we should too. The obvious problem with this is that it is always possible that the majority of people are actually wrong. Can you think of any circumstance in history where most people were simply wrong?

Straw Man

Fallacies of audience

A weekend misinterpretation of an opponents view. The fallacy set up the opponent in such a position that he's easily knocked over. It ignores the opponents, real argument or position, and substitute, a distorted or exaggerated position, which makes the opponents view seem mindless, weak, and easier to defeat..

Guilt by Association

Fallacies of audience

Uses bad reputation to discredit. The fallacy a tax, a person or position because of a shared connection. The problem is that a person or position with a bad reputation doesn't have to be wrong and everything. Also, these connections are often exaggerated. Here the opponent brings light to a negative association.

Begging the Question

Fallacies of Evidence

The use of the claim as its own justification. The fallacy is the use of circular reasoning. Instead of offering a real support for a position or a real answer for a question, the position or question itself is simply restated in different words as an explanation or answer. The problem is that it never answers “why.”

Non Sequitur

Fallacies of Evidence

Draws a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. It i s Latin for “it does not follow.” A conclusion should be based off the evidence, discussion, arguement that preceded it. It is a statement that is not supported by the evidence that is supposed to prove it. It is like saying A=B and B=C; therefore, C=hotdog. C may be equal to hotdog, but it does not make sense based on what led up to it.

Appeal to Ignorance

Fallacies of Evidence

Argues that a lack of evidence is itself evidence. The fall season argument, either four or against a claim, based on a lack of evidence either four or against the claim. It argues that if we have no evidence to prove something false that it must be true or that if we have no evidence to prove something true, it must be false. By itself, a lack of evidence is exactly that not evidence. You must have evidence to prove a claim.

Appeal to Authority

Fallacies of Evidence

Submits testimony from an irrelevant or dubious source of evidence. The fallacy occurs when an arguer sites as evidence and authority who is either not a reliable authority at all, or who is not an authority on the subject for which she's being cited. Testimony from authority can be used as evidence, but only if he is a reliable authority on the issue at hand. Michael Jordan may be an authority on the slam dunk, but you shouldn't quote him as evidence to support your group views on immigration