Fallacy Fallacy Magnets

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

Description: The Fallacy Fallacy occurs when you assume a claim is false because a logical fallacy was used during arguments supporting the claim.

Description: The Exact Definition Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously demands their opponent provide a definition solely to score debate points when they can't provide one that meets an arbitrary standard

Description: The Argument to Moderation Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that true or most reasonable answer is a compromise between two given answers (when in fact one of the given answers may be right)

Description: The Fault as Virtue Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously reframes a flaw in themselves or a situation as a good thing to support their argument.

Description: The Honor by Association Fallacy occurs when someone tries to make themselves look better because of a connection to a positive person or concept.

Description: The Appeal to Freedom Fallacy is committed when someone claims that they should be entitled to something because any restraint of personal freedom for any reason is unacceptable.

Description: The Hot Hand Fallacy is committed when someone confuses dependent and independent events and claims that because particular outcome has been happening recently, it will continue to happen.

Description: The Complex Question Fallacy is committed when someone asks a question which includes the answer they are expecting or only allows people to answer in one way.

Description: The Insignificant Cause Fallacy occurs when someone claims an outcome is due to something which may be a minor factor, but is certainly not the main cause.

Description: The Appeal to Definition Fallacy occurs when someone relies on a specific definition, from a dictionary or other authority, which supports their argument, and ignores the possibility that other definitions are also reasonable.

Description: The Golden Hammer Fallacy occurs when someone assumes it is sensible to rely on a single tool or method to solve every problem.

Description: The Zero Sum fallacy occurs when someone assumes gains and losses in a specific situation are directly balanced when in fact they are not.

Description: The Tautological Templar Fallacy involves a person claiming their actions are good or right because they are a good person who only does good things.

Description: The Broken Clock Fallacy occurs when someone suggests that because they were right once (even if it was for the wrong reason) they should be trusted generally.

Description: The Think of the Children Fallacy occurs when someone invokes an appeal to emotion involving theoretical harm to children to avoid addressing an actual argument.

Description: The Square One Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses all the work and research that has been done and pretends we need to start from the beginning to solve or understand a problem.

Description: The Just Because Fallacy occurs when someone refuses to give a reason or evidence for their assertion, instead expecting others to trust their authority just because.

Description: 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

Description: Sunk cost fallacy. The “sunk cost fallacy” is where sunk costs made in the past influence future investment. Whilst it may make sense to discontinue investment and “cut ones losses” often the fact of the past costs are used to justify continuing. This could be true of for example economic investments or relationships. Throwing good money after bad.

Description: The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that leads people to base their whole opinion of someone on a single positive or negative trait.

Description: Hypophora occurs when someone answers their own question without giving anyone else a chance to answer. It can be fallacious if the answer given serves them better than other plausible answers.

Description: The Morton's Fork Fallacy is committed when someone suggests two seemingly different choices actually lead to the same negative result.

Description: The fallacy of Factoid Propagation is committed when someone uses a 'fact' they heard to support their position, without knowing (or caring) if the fact is true or not.

Description: The False Balance Fallacy is committed when someone suggests that both sides of an issue are equally worthy of debate or consideration, even when most or all the evidence favors one side.

Description: The Euphemism Fallacy occurs when someone uses a misleadingly positive word or phrase in order to avoid a negative reality.

Description: The Appeal to Pity Fallacy occurs when someone tries to convince others by making them feel sympathetic instead of using evidence.

Description: The Jingoism Fallacy occurs when someone attempts to appeal to patriotic emotions rather than reason to persuade others.

Description: Chronocentrism occurs when someone assumes a specific time period is inherently better or more important than all others.

Description: Truth Rejection occurs when someone addresses a question by specifically mentioning a particular response they won't accept - which happens to be the truth.

Description: Spin Doctoring occurs when people manipulate or frame information to control public perception.

Description: Nutpicking is the practise of choosing an extreme view or fringe member of a group and representing it as typical of that group to support an argument or point of view.

Description: The Didactic Fallacy occurs when someone attempts to apply a historical analogy to a current situation but takes the wrong lesson from history or applies it to an inappropriate modern problem.

Description: The Courtier's Reply occurs when someone dismisses their opponent's opinion by claiming they lack sufficient expertise on the subject to be allowed to opine.

Description: False Uniqueness occurs when someone overestimates how rare their positive traits, abilities, or experience are.

Description: The If By Whiskey Fallacy is committed when someone either takes such a non-committal stance on an issue that they could be supporting either side, or redefines the terms of the question to answer in the way they want to answer.