Logical Fallacy Kids T-Shirts

The Argument from Too Much Evidence occurs when someone suggests an imbalance of evidence in one direction is somehow suspicious and therefore proof of the opposite being true. Subscribe to the podcast at http://fallacioustrump.com

The fallacy of Moral Equivalence is committed when someone argues that because the actions of two people or groups are morally equivalent (whether they are or not), those people or groups are just as bad as each other.

The Automation Fallacy occurs when people are over reliant on technology for decision making.

The Countless Counterfeit fallacy is committed when someone suggests a large amount of unreliable evidence, when combined together, can be considered reliable.

A genetic fallacy is the logical error of believing or dismissing a claim based on its origin rather than evidence. Help to spread the word about this logical fallacy

The I'm Entitled to my Opinion Fallacy occurs when someone invokes this supposed right in the face of opposing evidence which they can't argue against. Subscribe to the podcast at http://fallacioustrump.com

Inspired by the single cause fallacy

A straw man fallacy is the logical error of distorting a claim or argument to make it easier to refute. Help to spread the word about this logical fallacy

Logical fallacy - it looks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, it is not a duck, Occam's razor principle does not apply.

The What's the Harm Fallacy occurs when someone suggests trying something be rhetorically asking what's the harm, thereby implying that there is none.

The Sour Grapes Fallacy occurs when someone rationalizes their failure after the fact by claiming the thing they were trying to attain wasn't actually any good.

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy describes a situation where someone collects or examines a large amount of data without deciding in advance exactly what they’re testing, then chooses a sample which provides evidence for their existing opinion. It’s based on a story where an inexperienced gunman fires indiscriminately at the side of a barn, and then draws a target around the largest cluster of bullet holes.

A logical fallacy in which the arguer ignores a large amount of evidence which casts doubt on their claim, carefully selecting only the parts which make their claim sound plausible.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy is committed when your existing definition of a particular group is challenged by a member who doesn’t fit the criteria. Rather than adjust the definition, the offending group member is redefined as a non-member of the group.

A Red Herring is a distraction, anything that sends a conversation off on a tangent and away from the original point. When someone completely avoids a question by bringing up another issue entirely, they are committing a Red Herring fallacy.

The Scapegoating fallacy occurs when someone unfairly blames a problem on an already unpopular person or group.

The Slippery Slope fallacy is committed when a person assumes if one bad thing happens, then more, and often worse, bad things will inevitably follow.

The Playing the Victim fallacy occurs when someone tries to deflect criticism by arguing the target of criticism is just being persecuted, without addressing the content of the accusation. By attributing negative traits to someone before they even have the chance to make their argument, the well poisoner primes the listener not to believe what they are about to hear. As it does not seek to address the actual argument at all, this reasoning is fallacious.

Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

A definition of a logical fallacy, as described by the Fallacious Trump Podcast

Ampersand design logical fallacies shirt, featuring Strawman, Post Hoc, Ad Hominem and Non Sequitur

The Worst Case Scenario Fallacy occurs when someone argues as if the worst case scenario if the probable outcome rather than an unlikely situation.

Affirming the Consequent is a formal logical fallacy taking the form: If P then Q Q Therefore, P

Denying the Antecedent is a formal logical fallacy taking the form: If P then Q Not P Therefore, not Q eg: If I am a bird, I have two legs. I am not a bird (I am a human) Therefore I do not have two legs.

Kindly remind people when they're making logical fallacies like argumentum ad hominem.

Don't you hate it when people conflate correlation and causation? Remind folks that they aren't the same with this design.

Occam's olde-timey, pure logic razors.

Hop Aboard the Circular Argument Express: It's a Never-Ending Ride!

This design aims to help you engage in conversation with people who agree with the message. It’s a clever strategy to communicate how you feel. It's helpful when people accept the things they cannot change and just leave well enough alone.

Where students learn to attack people instead of ideas.

Are you sure you'd like to hire us?

Correlation does not imply causation

Correlation does not imply causation

You know for a fact that you are factually right and accurate. But there are people who can't change despite providing enough facts and valid logical arguments. You can't force them to be right. You can only agree to disagree and move and dont have to end up having a quarrel.

Far too often we're told that logic should grounds us. Become untethered. Be different, let yourself become unmoored by logic.

The Moving the Goalposts Fallacy describes a situation where someone responds to evidence which refutes their claim by changing the rules and demanding ever more and greater evidence