Fallacy Fallacy Phone Cases - iPhone and Android

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

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

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: The Appeal to Fame Fallacy occurs when someone equates fame with being trustworthy

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

Description: The Ad Feminam Fallacy occurs when someone attacks their opponent using misogynistic or dismissive rhetoric because they're a woman, rather than engaging with their argument.

Description: The Blinded by AI Fallacy occurs when someone bases their claim on an unrealistic view of what artificial intelligence is currently capable of reliably achieving.

Description: The Labelling Fallacy occurs when someone assigns a (usually negative) label to a person or idea as a shortcut to avoid providing evidence of how the person or idea is wrong.

Description: The Sanctimony Fallacy occurs when someone claims to be morally superior to their opponent, either without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

Description: The Furtive Fallacy occurs when someone assumes that significant events are due to hidden actions by nefarious powerful people.

Description: A clean, typography-focused design for software developers, coders, and computer science nerds who appreciate clean code and dark humor.

Description: The Appeal to Common Sense fallacy occurs when someone invokes "common sense" as a reason to believe something instead of providing evidence.

Description: The Appeal to Outdated Data fallacy occurs when someone uses evidence to support their claim, but the evidence has already been debunked or superseded by contradictory data.

Description: Whataboutism occurs when someone who is accused of something tries to distract and derail the conversation by talking about something somebody else did, which is implied to be equivalent.

Description: The Iron Man fallacy is committed when someone misrepresents their own position (or one they agree with) to suggest it is in fact a much stronger position that nobody could argue with.

Description: The Ethnocentric Fallacy occurs when someone starts from an assumption that their own culture is superior to others or was more instrumental in history than it really was.

Description: 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.

Description: 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.