15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before

Getting Into a Debate








A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name. Knowing how to
spot and identify fallacies is a priceless skill. It can save you time, money, and personal dignity.
Formal fallacies are breakdowns in how you say something, the ideas are ordered wrong somehow.
Their form is wrong.

Informal fallacies, like the ones below, have to do with what you are saying (the “content” of an
argument). The ideas might be arranged right, but something you said isn’t quite right. The content is
wrong. Here’s a list of the 15 informal fallacies you are most likely to encounter in discussion and
debate.

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy
Ad hominem is an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion.

When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with
personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. In logic and rhetoric,
personal attacks are called ad hominems. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of
advancing good sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical argumentation with attack-language
unrelated to the truth of the matter.

More specifically, ad hominems are a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another
person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other
features irrelevant to the argument at issue.

An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in
support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their
claims. Ad hominems are common known in politics as “mudslinging.” Instead of addressing the
candidate’s stance on the issues, or addressing his or her effectiveness as a statesman or stateswoman,
ad hominems focus on personality issues, speech patterns, wardrobe, style, and other things that affect
popularity but have no bearing on their competence. In this way, ad hominemscan be unethical, seeking
to manipulate voters by appealing to irrelevant foibles and name-calling instead of addressing core
issues. In this last election cycle, personal attacks were volleyed freely from all sides of the political
aisle, with both Clinton and Trump facing their fair share of ad hominems.

A thread on Quora lists the following doozies against Hillary Clinton: “Killary Clinton,” “Crooked
Hillary,” “Hilla the Hun,” “Shillary,” “Hitlery,” “Klinton,” “Hildebeest,” “Defender of Child rapists,”
“Corporate Whore,” “Mr. President,” “Heil Hillary,” “Wicked Witch of the West Wing,” “Robberty
Hillham Clinton,” “Mrs. Carpetbagger”, and the decidedly unsubtle, “The Devil.”

The NY Daily News offers an amusing list of insults against Donald Trump: “Short fingered
Vulgarian,” “Angry Creamsicle,” “Fascist Carnival Barker,” “F*ckface von Clownstick,”
“Decomposing Jack-O-Lantern,” “Chairman of the Saddam Hussein Fanclub,” “Racist Clementine,”
“Sentient Caps Lock Button,” “Cheeto Jesus,” “Tangerine Tornado,” and perhaps the most
creative/literary reference, “Rome Burning in Man Form.”

Ad hominems often signal the point at which a civil disagreement has descended into a “fight.” Whether
it’s siblings, friends, or lovers, most everyone has had a verbal disagreement crumble into a disjointed
shouting match of angry insults and accusations aimed at discrediting the other person. When these
insults crowd out a substantial argument, they become ad hominems.
2. Straw Man

In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.

It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman fallacy is
aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position
the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead
attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never
intended upon defending anyway.

Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this
fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By
comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how straw man fallacies and
ad hominems can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.

This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing the opponent’s position for
the sake of deceiving others. But often the straw man fallacy is accidental, because one doesn’t realize he or
she is oversimplifying a nuanced position, or misrepresenting a narrow, cautious claim as if it were broad and
foolhardy.

3. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious
appeal to ignorance. Naturally, we are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to
allow this unfortunate aspect of the human condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an argument.

Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once. Consider
the following two claims: “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials exist,
so they must not be real.” “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials do not
exist, so they must be real.” If the same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims, then
it’s not a good argument strategy.

Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t know something. If no one has proven the
non-existence of ghosts or flying saucers, that’s hardly proof that those things exist or don’t exist. If we
don’t know whether they exist, then we don’t know that they exist or that they don’t exist. Ignorance
doesn’t prove any claim to knowledge.

4. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,”
and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in
fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or
both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there are a whole range of options,
three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs
by oversimplifying the range of options.

Dilemma-based arguments are only fallacious when, in fact, there are more than the stated options. It’s
not a fallacy however if there really are only two options. For example, “either Led Zeppelin is the
greatest band of all time, or they are not.” That’s a true dilemma, since there really are only two options
there: A or non-A. It would be fallacious however to say, “there are only two kinds of people in the
world, people who love Led Zeppelin, and people who hate music.” Some people are indifferent about
that music. Some sort of like it, or sort of dislike it, but don’t have strong feelings either way.

The false dilemma fallacy is often a manipulative tool designed to polarize the audience, heroicizing one side
and demonizing the other. It’s common in political discourse as a way of strong-arming the public into
supporting controversial legislation or policies.
5. Slippery Slope
The slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely when there’s just
not enough evidence to think so.

You may have used this fallacy on your parents as a teenager: “But, you have to let me go to the party!
If I don’t go to the party, I’ll be a loser with no friends. Next thing you know I’ll end up alone and
jobless living in your basement when I’m 30!” The slippery slope fallacy works by moving from a
seemingly benign premise or starting point and working through a number of small steps to an
improbable extreme.

This fallacy is not just a long series of causes. Some causal chains are perfectly reasonable. There could
be a complicated series of causes which are all related, and we have good reason for expecting the first
cause to generate the last outcome. The slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests that unlikely or
ridiculous outcomes are likely when there’s just not enough evidence to think so.

Certain ad campaigns from Dodge, Taco Bell, and notably a recent one for Direct TV, commit this
fallacy to great comic effect.

It’s hard enough to prove one thing is happening or has happened; it’s even harder to prove a whole
series of events will happen. That’s a claim about the future, and we haven’t arrived there yet. We,
generally, don’t know the future with that kind of certainty. The slippery slope fallacy slides right over
that difficulty by assuming that chain of future events without really proving their likelihood.

6. Circular Argument (petitio principii)

When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not arriving at
any new conclusion. We call this a circular argument or circular reasoning. If someone says, “the Bible
is true because the Bible says it’s true”—that’s a circular argument. One is assuming that the Bible only
speaks truth, and so they trust it to truthfully report that it speaks the truth. Another example of circular
reasoning is, “According to my brain, my brain is reliable.” Well, yes, of course we would think our
brains are in fact reliable if our brains are the one’s telling us that our brains are reliable.

Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii meaning “Assuming the initial [thing]“ (commonly
mistranslated as “begging the question”). This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where it only
appears to be an argument. It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way that looks like an
argument. You can recognize a circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the
premises in the argument.

7. Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there’s no single agreed-upon measure
for “sufficient” evidence.

Hasty generalizations are general statements without sufficient evidence to support them. They are
general claims too hastily made, hence they commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping,
unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration.

Normally we generalize without any problem. We make general statements all the time: “I like going to
the park,” “Democrats disagree with Republicans,” “It’s faster to drive to work than to walk,” or
“Everyone mourned the loss of Harambe, the Gorilla.”

Indeed, the above phrase “all the time” is a generalization — we aren’t all the time making these
statements. We take breaks to do other things like eat, sleep, and inhale. These general statements
aren’t addressing every case every time. They are speaking generally, and, generally speaking, they are
true. Sometimes you don’t enjoy going to the park. Sometimes Democrats and Republicans agree.
Sometimes driving to work can be slower than walking if the roads are all shut down for a Harambe
procession.

Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there’s no single agreed-upon
measure for “sufficient” evidence. Is one example enough to prove the claim that “Apple computers are
the most expensive computer brand?” What about 12 examples? What about if 37 out of 50 apple
computers were more expensive than comparable models from other brands?
There’s no set rule for what constitutes “enough” evidence. In this case, it might be possible to find
reasonable comparison and prove that claim is true or false. But in other cases, there’s no clear way to
support the claim without resorting to guesswork. The means of measuring evidence can change
according to the kind of claim you are making, whether it’s in philosophy, or in the sciences, or in a
political debate, or in discussing house rules for using the kitchen. A much safer claim is that “Apple
computers are more expensive than many other computer brands.”

Meanwhile, we do well to avoid treating general statements like they are anything more than
generalizations. Even if it were generally true that women are bad drivers — and I’m not saying they
are — there are still plenty of women who are good drivers. And those “cases” just aren’t covered with
that general statement even if it were true. In my case, my wife is a better driver than I am. So I do well
not to generalize too widely.

A simple way to avoid hasty generalizations is to add qualifiers like “sometimes,” “maybe,” “often,” or
“it seems to be the case that . . . “. When we don’t guard against hasty generalization, we risk
stereotyping, sexism, racism, or simple incorrectness. But with the right qualifiers, we can often make a
hasty generalization into a responsible and credible claim.

8. Red Herring (ignoratio elenchi) Red herrings can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear how
different topics relate.

A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be
relevant but isn’t really on-topic. Typically, the distraction sounds relevant but isn’t quite on-topic. This
tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else
instead, something easier or safer to address. Red herrings are typically related to the issue in question
but aren’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing they confuse and
distract.

The phrase “red herring” refers to a kippered herring (salted herring-fish) which was reddish brown in
color and quite pungent. According to legend, this aroma was so strong and delectable to dogs that it
served as a good training device for testing how well a hunting dog could track a scent without getting
distracted. Dogs aren’t generally used for hunting fish so a red herring is a distraction from what he is
supposed to be hunting.

Red herrings can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear how different topics relate. A
“side” topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant way. In the big meaty disagreements of
our day, there are usually a lot of layers involved, with different subtopics weaving into them. We can
guard against the red herring fallacy by clarifying how our part of the conversation is relevant to the
core topic.

9. Tu Quoque Fallacy

The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from
the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove
one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth. Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a
diversionary tactic. In this way, the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one’s self by
accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. If Jack says, “Maybe I
committed a little adultery, but so did you Jason!” Jack is trying to diminish his responsibility or defend
his actions by distributing blame to other people. But no one else’s guilt excuses his own guilt. No
matter who else is guilty, Jack is still an adulterer.

The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame, but it really only distracts from the initial problem.
To be clear, however, it isn’t a fallacy to simply point out hypocrisy where it occurs. For example, Jack
may say, “yes, I committed adultery. Jill committed adultery. Lots of us did, but I’m still responsible
for my mistakes.” In this example, Jack isn’t defending himself or excusing his behavior. He’s
admitting his part within a larger problem. The hypocrisy claim becomes a fallacy only when the arguer
uses some (apparent) hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from the issue.

10. Causal Fallacy

The Causal Fallacy is any logical breakdown when identifying a cause. You can think of the Causal
Fallacy as a parent category for several different fallacies about unproven causes.
One causal fallacy is the False Cause or non causa pro causa (“not the-cause for a cause”) fallacy,
which is when you conclude about a cause without enough evidence to do so. Consider, for example,
“Since your parents named you ‘Harvest,’ they must be farmers.” It’s possible that the parents are
farmers, but that name alone is not enough evidence to draw that conclusion. That name doesn’t tell us
much of anything about the parents. This claim commits the False Cause Fallacy.

Another causal fallacy is the Post Hoc fallacy. Post hoc is short for post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after
this, therefore because of this”). This fallacy happens when you mistake something for the cause just
because it came first. The key words here are “Post” and “propter” meaning “after” and “because of.”
Just because this came before that doesn’t mean this caused that. Post doesn’t prove propter. A lot of
superstitions are susceptible to this fallacy. For example:

“Yesterday, I walked under a ladder with an open umbrella indoors while spilling salt in front of a
black cat. And I forgot to knock on wood with my lucky dice. That must be why I’m having such a bad
day today. It’s bad luck.”

Now, it’s theoretically possible that those things cause bad luck. But since those superstitions have no
known or demonstrated causal power, and “luck” isn’t exactly the most scientifically reliable category,
it’s more reasonable to assume that those events, by themselves, didn’t cause bad luck. Perhaps that
person’s “bad luck” is just his own interpretation because he was expecting to have bad luck. He might
be having a genuinely bad day, but we cannot assume some non-natural relation between those events
caused today to go bad. That’s a Post Hoc fallacy. Now, if you fell off a ladder onto an angry black cat
and got tangled in an umbrella, that will guarantee you one bad day.

Another kind of causal fallacy is the correlational fallacy also known as cum hoc ergo property hoc
(Lat., “with this therefore because of this”). This fallacy happens when you mistakenly interpret two
things found together as being causally related. Two things may correlate without a causal relation, or
they may have some third factor causing both of them to occur. Or perhaps both things just,
coincidentally, happened together. Correlation doesn’t prove causation.

Consider for example, “Every time Joe goes swimming he is wearing his Speedos. Something about
wearing that Speedo must make him want to go swimming.” That statement is a correlational fallacy.
Sure it’s theoretically possible that he spontaneously sports his euro-style swim trunks, with no thought
of where that may lead, and surprisingly he’s now motivated to dive and swim in cold, wet nature.
That’s possible. But it makes more sense that he put on his trunks because he already planned to go
swimming.