A fallacy is an error in reasoning, created either unintentionally during a debate or argument, or sometimes intentionally in order to deceive someone. They are good to know as we spend more and more time arguing with strangers on the internet, it is more than likely tat you have been guilty of one of these common fallacies at some stage!
With truth becoming an increasingly elusive concept in these days of fake news, denial of science and appeal to partisan emotions over logic, being able to spot these fallacies is also an important skill to have. Logan Murphy, from San Francisco, has helpfully compiled a list of the most common fallacies, in easily digestible and humorous illustrations. “They took a bit to make but it was a fun project,” he told Bored Panda. “I was hoping to hit the sweet spot between humor and truth.”
Logan, who has an associate's degree in philosophy, says his inspiration for the illustrations came from working in customer service. “Customers use them a lot in an attempt to get things,” he explained. “I’m never able to call them on what they are doing, so this started out as me venting!”
Scroll down below to check out Logan's educational and amusing illustrations for yourself, and let us know what you think in the comments!
Image credits: Slippysilverpanda
This post may include affiliate links.
This is the exact description of Religion. And the right to have guns in the US.
And this, in a nutshell, is why people believe in a flat Earth...
Stick Plane crashed, 0 Survivors, 377 sticks died! Search for Stick Box under way!
Arguing with religious people in a nutshell. People used to believe that gods lived on high mountains, under the earth and in other places we hadn't gotten to yet, then we explored those places and didn't find gods, so it turns out the gods were in the sky the whole time, but then we went into space and there were no such creatures there, so it turns out they ACTUALLY always lived on a different plane of reality and you can never go there to get evidence that they exist.
This should probably be rephrased, as some "personal experience" can disprove certain types of argument. Take the classical proposition from several centuries ago that all swans were white. It only took one black swan to disprove that hypothesis - if the refuter had seen and evidenced that sighting, the original argument is lost. The issue here is confabulating "opinion" with "experience" - another logical fallacy, as it happens...
The burden is on the claimant. Or is it just that there IS a burden of proof not being addressed by any arguer? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Load More Replies... This is not what 'burden of proof' means. The expression is a legal term meaning the necessity of providing evidence to corroborate testimony and is usually followed by 'lies by' (or similar) indicating who is obliged to provide such evidence. In common parlance it is an abbreviation of the expression 'burden of proof lies with the author', i.e. it is the author of the hypothesis who needs to corroborate it with evidence (or, tautologically, 'claim is not considered proven until it is proven' not 'claim is proven until disproved'). What we have here is a type of false dilemma, namely the assumption that existence of proof is required for an argument to be valid or not. This assumption is not true, because veracity of statement is based on truth, not any other statement. Thus, if an argument can't be corroborated with facts, but is not disproved, it does not need to be false - it may be truth or not, we just do not know which is the case until evidence to or against appears.
You utterly cannot disprove something which never existed.other than in the mind of the beholder. How is it possible to disprove something that never happened, There is no truth, reason or sanity in the mind of a sociopath
Load More Replies...
One of the prime arguments that religious people use to "prove" god exists.
A God only exists in the imagination of frightened people - He controls the world- worship Him and you will be safe. From the Incas to the Aztecs, from the Bhuddists to Islam to Catholics - Religeon is the root of all the evil and persecution in the world
Load More Replies...
actually both sides must have the ultimate evidence for their arguments, nobody will never be free from the burden of proof.
To a degree. You have no burden to disprove what was never proven to begin with. If someone makes a claim and refuses to back it up, then you have no burden whatsoever to discredit it. Because it was never credited to begin with.
Load More Replies...
Not to mention that it's almost impossible to prove absence.
Load More Replies...
The fallacy here is when the person making the claim shifts the burden of proof to the opposing side. In a trial, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. So it is when it comes to a claim. It’s not true until it’s proven to be true. Of course, in every day life, we can accept many claims at face value because in our experience, they occur regularly and we have no reason to doubt them. We can also place our trust in people whom we know to be reliable, even if their account seems extraordinary. However there are certain things, like the existence of god, or the truth of a particular religion, which are so far beyond the human experience that the burden of proof is even heavier on the person making the claim. For that person to then turn around and insist that it’s on the disbeliever to prove that God doesn’t exist is a major fallacy. Because we could go a million years and never see or hear a peep from god, but that’s doesn’t *technically* prove anything.
No it's not. Burden of proof isn't a fallacy, it's a concept. It is the requirement that a participant in a discussion prove evidence for a claim. Shifting the burden of proof is demanding that someone else provide evidence when they don't have a requirement to yet (such as making a claim, then demanding the other person proof it wrong when you haven't provided evidence that it was right to begin with). This is just argument from silence.
Climate change - Prove that we are wrong (even when you have been screaming the sky is falling for 40 years, and we still don't see manhattan under water, and the seychelles land area grew by 20%, despite it should have been under water too by now...)
This is what so many debunkers can't get straight - it's as much a fallacy to say something DOESN'T exist when not proven as that it DOES.
I believe the burden of proof falls on those whose opinion is the minority held one. For example, in a group of mostly Christians, the burden of proof falls on the atheist, whereas in a group of mostly atheists, the burden of proof falls on the Christian because they are making claims that are contrary to what the majority hold.
How can you make claims that the storms, the floods, the droughts, the plagues, the famines, the earthquakes are "acts of god" or many gods, depending on where you live in the world. Modern science will explain, religion doesnt want to. "Appease and worship the gods and you will be redeemed and saved" is not pertinant. Offering up your life savings to a god (American money-grabbing preachers) will not help you no more than sacrificing your first born child ever would. Greek and Roman Mythology is rightly described as exactly that - Mythology. So should be every religion under the sun-god.
Load More Replies...
Mostly Religous apologists, Flat Earthers and Creationists use all those tactics because they cannot support their asinine, moronic claims with any scientific fact.
Wasn't it Paul Merton who did a bit about this (ca. 1991 - 1993)? "So you don't like toast, hm? What do you want to eat? HUMAN EXCREMENTS?"
"If abortion gets regulated, all women will abort their babies and soon humanity will go extinct! Won't someone think of the children?! :( "
I usually end up with some form of this when I ask Christians "Why did Jesus have to die for God to forgive us?" So far I haven't heard a good explanation. (Yes, there's "he was perfect and paid in blood sacrifice for the whole Adam and Eve debacle" but if God's plan was to forgive people, why didn't he just do it WITHOUT killing Jesus. Ugh, even without all that we're starting on the false premise of the Adam and Eve story being true, which is just immense levels of ridiculous.)
It’s not only about inanimate objects but people’s feelings, as well. "You’ve hurt my feelings" or "this offends me" are on the same level. Someone is offended, so what? It doesn’t give them any rights. Hurt emotions are a part of life, but if people can’t control their own emotions they often start trying to control other people’s behavior. At this point any discussion turns pathetic.
This isn't entirely accurate. According to Wikipedia, which provides a good definition: "The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive."
Yup. Just because someone is a d**k, doesn't mean they can't point it out when you're being one. Being a d**k doesn't automatically make them wrong, just a hypocrite.
I don't get this one. If an argument contained a fallacy (even if the one using it doesn't know it) then, the reasoning is likely to be unsound. Depending of the fallacy of course
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person"
‘Arguing with a stupid person is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter who won the stupid bird will still s**t all over the board and strut around like it won anyway’. That’s not the exact quote but it was something like that.
Load More Replies...
I also like, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
Load More Replies...
I don’t see the point in this. If you start with “I have an opinion”, any stupid or illogical reply is OK, because opinions are like a-holes. It would be different if we were talking about facts or theories or logical arguments. But when you’re just voicing your opinion, any answer is legit.
I know someone who uses all of these as excuses in arguments. It's exhausting.
A couple months ago me and a few other people from a community I'm in had a...heated discussion, with someone who absolutely hated us for some reason, from this list he was using, Ad hominem, Bulverism, Circular reasoning, Moral high ground, Moving the goalposts, and Reductio ad hitlerum. It was the most frustrating thing because you give actual points only to get "well that doesn't matter because you're nazis." "What? How are we nazis?" "Lol You're nazis because I know you are."
I too.This are easily misused in the internet. People often wrongly call out others for using these fallacies. The most popular one being the strawman, a person can call out other for using it and say "No, I did not meant that" and post a comment explaining what he said, completely different from his original argument.
Load More Replies...
Well, this is horrible. These so called 'logical fallacies' are the weapon of internet arguers. No, not using them, but calling out others for using them. Internet arguers very commonly call out others for a logical fallacy, often wrongly. The obviously correct one of these is Ad Hominem(so common it does not even feel wrong, but a part of a debate). Both sides label each other for cherry picking in almost every argument I have seen. , both sides label each other for using 'strawman' arguments, it is the second most popular one for internet arguers after the cherry picking label. Like person A posted an argument, person B posted an answer, person A posted another comment explaining what he had *actually* said, writing a comment that does not even sound like his original argument and calls out person B for using strawman arguments.
There are many such examples of false strawman fallacy labelling. Sometimes some arguments clearly seem directed at something, and if a person writes even a word about it, kids instantly scream '*STRAWMAN!!'* on Reddit. Just because a person is trying to work his way around something cleverly like in the line I just wrote, or can not present his argument properly, and somebody calls it out does not means that our person B is wrong, it means that Person A is wrong. Even so, if somebody actually misunderstands a comments, personal attacks begin instead of a proper correction, not like in the original post. Such is the case with many of these. Internet arguers weaponize everything, both logical fallacies and calling out others for them.
Load More Replies...
I am fascinated how many people were able to push in anti-Trump and anti-gun libtard vomit under these pictures. Other than that, nice article with summary of various argumentation types.
People use these to espouse anti-Trump arguments for the simple reason that Trump and his sycophants employ these fallacies constantly.
Load More Replies...
'Something' outside the creation give signs to whom inside the creation to believe and obey 'him' for the sake of creation itself. But who believer often miss understood 'who' outside is and what 'who outside' intended. Make it a confusion and chaos. They forget that "who outside" (not actually outside as our limited knowing) is loving and merciful. Its up to you to believe or not. As 'who outside' said, there are no coercion to believe, everything is only for your own goodness O who want to use rationality. Because, in my opinion, 'he' create and define the Law of Causality in 'his' creation, and don't let us lose because we don't know or believe. As a material for thought, isn't it difficult to find justice in the world, then how can justice be fulfilled if no one has absolute justice? And many things that are similar (beyond our capability) make us look for who is the absolute one.
I don't consider opinions as right or wrong, but facts as correct or incorrect. In fact when I can't get ideots to shut up about their stupid points, I just add "well that's your opinion though", and it drives them made 😎
Another good reply is "ok, you are right and I have peace and quiet".
Load More Replies...
and 90% of the time in an online argument ended with the losing side cursing the other person and claim him/herself to be holier than thou.
I have just undergone personal incrudility and cherry picking in an argument. Now I like a good debate but you are essentially not responding to the topic and running here and there and then telling the other person how wrong they are. I mean what the f**k dude.
Where's the evergrowing "but it hurts my/his/her/theirs feelings just by existing therefore it's bad"? Did I miss it somewhere?
associate's degree in philosophy - I think you need to continue to study both psychology and english because I find many of these lacking in both.
Okay... so... how ARE you supposed to deal with these people? Only highlighting the problem, and not offering a solution isn't going to help anything.
You do not deal with these people, you accept that you will not change them and you move on.
Load More Replies... 
DOOOO YOOOOOU HAVE AN OPINOOOOOOON? A mind of your own.... ♬♪ (sorry, I had to ♥)
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person"
‘Arguing with a stupid person is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter who won the stupid bird will still s**t all over the board and strut around like it won anyway’. That’s not the exact quote but it was something like that.
Load More Replies... I also like, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
Load More Replies... I don’t see the point in this. If you start with “I have an opinion”, any stupid or illogical reply is OK, because opinions are like a-holes. It would be different if we were talking about facts or theories or logical arguments. But when you’re just voicing your opinion, any answer is legit.
I know someone who uses all of these as excuses in arguments. It's exhausting.
A couple months ago me and a few other people from a community I'm in had a...heated discussion, with someone who absolutely hated us for some reason, from this list he was using, Ad hominem, Bulverism, Circular reasoning, Moral high ground, Moving the goalposts, and Reductio ad hitlerum. It was the most frustrating thing because you give actual points only to get "well that doesn't matter because you're nazis." "What? How are we nazis?" "Lol You're nazis because I know you are."
I too.This are easily misused in the internet. People often wrongly call out others for using these fallacies. The most popular one being the strawman, a person can call out other for using it and say "No, I did not meant that" and post a comment explaining what he said, completely different from his original argument.
Load More Replies... Well, this is horrible. These so called 'logical fallacies' are the weapon of internet arguers. No, not using them, but calling out others for using them. Internet arguers very commonly call out others for a logical fallacy, often wrongly. The obviously correct one of these is Ad Hominem(so common it does not even feel wrong, but a part of a debate). Both sides label each other for cherry picking in almost every argument I have seen. , both sides label each other for using 'strawman' arguments, it is the second most popular one for internet arguers after the cherry picking label. Like person A posted an argument, person B posted an answer, person A posted another comment explaining what he had *actually* said, writing a comment that does not even sound like his original argument and calls out person B for using strawman arguments.
There are many such examples of false strawman fallacy labelling. Sometimes some arguments clearly seem directed at something, and if a person writes even a word about it, kids instantly scream '*STRAWMAN!!'* on Reddit. Just because a person is trying to work his way around something cleverly like in the line I just wrote, or can not present his argument properly, and somebody calls it out does not means that our person B is wrong, it means that Person A is wrong. Even so, if somebody actually misunderstands a comments, personal attacks begin instead of a proper correction, not like in the original post. Such is the case with many of these. Internet arguers weaponize everything, both logical fallacies and calling out others for them.
Load More Replies... I am fascinated how many people were able to push in anti-Trump and anti-gun libtard vomit under these pictures. Other than that, nice article with summary of various argumentation types.
People use these to espouse anti-Trump arguments for the simple reason that Trump and his sycophants employ these fallacies constantly.
Load More Replies... 'Something' outside the creation give signs to whom inside the creation to believe and obey 'him' for the sake of creation itself. But who believer often miss understood 'who' outside is and what 'who outside' intended. Make it a confusion and chaos. They forget that "who outside" (not actually outside as our limited knowing) is loving and merciful. Its up to you to believe or not. As 'who outside' said, there are no coercion to believe, everything is only for your own goodness O who want to use rationality. Because, in my opinion, 'he' create and define the Law of Causality in 'his' creation, and don't let us lose because we don't know or believe. As a material for thought, isn't it difficult to find justice in the world, then how can justice be fulfilled if no one has absolute justice? And many things that are similar (beyond our capability) make us look for who is the absolute one.
I don't consider opinions as right or wrong, but facts as correct or incorrect. In fact when I can't get ideots to shut up about their stupid points, I just add "well that's your opinion though", and it drives them made 😎
Another good reply is "ok, you are right and I have peace and quiet".
Load More Replies... and 90% of the time in an online argument ended with the losing side cursing the other person and claim him/herself to be holier than thou.
I have just undergone personal incrudility and cherry picking in an argument. Now I like a good debate but you are essentially not responding to the topic and running here and there and then telling the other person how wrong they are. I mean what the f**k dude.
Where's the evergrowing "but it hurts my/his/her/theirs feelings just by existing therefore it's bad"? Did I miss it somewhere?
associate's degree in philosophy - I think you need to continue to study both psychology and english because I find many of these lacking in both.
Okay... so... how ARE you supposed to deal with these people? Only highlighting the problem, and not offering a solution isn't going to help anything.
You do not deal with these people, you accept that you will not change them and you move on.
Load More Replies... DOOOO YOOOOOU HAVE AN OPINOOOOOOON? A mind of your own.... ♬♪ (sorry, I had to ♥)
