This resource is a compilation of descriptions of the most commonly encountered logical fallacies used in debate or propaganda.

A List of Common Logical Fallacies in Propaganda and Debate

Article compiled by Gatecreepers.

The majority of these descriptions are lifted from many pages across Wikipedia, and are condensed here. This page is intended as a quick and convenient reference for those who do not have the time to browse entire libraries.

Contents:

Ad Lapidem

Ad Lapidem is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a statement as absurd without giving a reason why it is supposedly absurd.

Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Affirming the consequent

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that assumes that because a hypothetical situation would bear a certain effect, that the occurrence of said effect implies that the aforementioned situation occured.

Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.

Appeal to consequences

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam, is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

Appeal to fear

An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metam or argumentum in terrorem) is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for her or his idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor.

Appeal to flattery

Appeal to flattery is a logical fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to win support for their side.

Flattery is often used to hide the true intent of an idea or proposal. Praise offers a momentary personal distraction that can often weaken judgment. Moreover, it is usually a cunning form of appeal to consequences, since the audience is subject to be flattered as long as they comply with the flatterer.

Appeal to nature

Appeal to nature is a simplified type of naturalistic fallacy in argument form. An appeal to nature fallacy consists of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural

Appeal to novelty

The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a logical fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern.

Appeal to pity

An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam) is a logical fallacy in which someone tries to win support for their argument or idea by exploiting their opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.

Appeal to probability

Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

Appeal to spite

Appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium) is a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party.

Appeal to tradition

Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way."

Argumentum ad baculum

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.

Argumentum ad crumenam

An argumentum ad crumenam argument, also known as an argument to the purse is a logical fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich.

Argumentum ad lazarum

Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the logical fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor.

Argumentum ad nauseam

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is a flawed argument, whereby some statement is made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to refute it anymore, at which point the statement is asserted to be true because it is no longer challenged.

Argumentum ad populum

An argumentum ad populum, appeal to the people, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Argument from fallacy

Also argumentum ad logicam - assumes that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.

Argument from ignorance

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

Argument from silence

The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is that the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is either ignorant of X or has a motive to remain silent about X. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but it may be valid circumstantial evidence in practical reasoning.

Association fallacy

An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association.

Begging the question

Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.

Biased sample

A biased sample is one that is falsely taken to be typical of a population from which it is drawn.

Bulverism

Bulverism is a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis where rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument.

Chronological snobbery

Chronological snobbery is the logical fallacy that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present.

Circular cause and consequence

Circular cause and consequence is a logical fallacy where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. This is also known as the the chicken or the egg fallacy.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

"More children in town A have leukemia than in town B. Therefore, there must be something wrong with town A."

Denying the antecedent

Denying the antecedent, a logical fallacy that assumes that because a hypothetical situation would bear a certain effect, that the absence of the hypothesised trigger situation means that the effect earlier described did not occur.

Etymological fallacy

An etymological fallacy is a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning.

Fallacy of the single cause

The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

False choice

The logical fallacy of false choice is a correlative-based fallacy in which options are presented as being exclusive when they may not be. It is often used to obscure the likelihood of one option or to reframe an argument on the user's terms.

False dilemma

The logical fallacy of false dilemma also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or fallacy and bifurcation involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.

Gambler's fallacy

"The roulette ball has landed on odd numbers eight times in a row. Therefore, it's more likely to land on an even number next time."

Genetic fallacy

The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy based on the irrelevant appraisal of something based on its origin.

It occurs when one attempts to reduce the significance of an idea, person, practice, or institution merely to an account of its origin (genesis) or earlier form. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

Hasty generalization

Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. (Hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample or secundum quid, is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence.)

Ignoratio elenchi

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.

Many questions

Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Middle ground logical fallacy

The middle ground logical fallacy (also called argumentum ad temperantiam) asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct.

Misleading vividness

The logical fallacy of misleading vividness involves describing some occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Overwhelming exception

The overwhelming exception is related to the hasty generalization, but working from the other end. It is a generalization which is accurate, but tags on a qualification which eliminates enough cases (as exceptions); that what remains is much less impressive than what the original statement might have led one to assume.

Package deal

The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.

Perfect solution fallacy

The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

Poisoning the well

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.

Proof by example

Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalisation) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.

Quoting out of context

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as contextomy, is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Slippery slope

In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later.

Spotlight fallacy

The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. This line of reasoning has the following form:

* Xs with quality Q receive a great deal of attention or coverage in the media. Therefore all Xs have quality Q.

Straw man

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Style over substance

The style over substance fallacy occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument.

Tu quoque

Tu quoque (Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.

Wishful thinking

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality.

Wrong direction

Wrong direction is a logical fallacy of causation where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.