20 Logical Fallacies That Dumb People Use To Win Arguments, And How To Spot Them

This is also done other way round. I am XYZ therefore ABC. Like "I am a doctor. Vaccinations are bad". Being in a certain profession does not necessarily mean that you are right.

This is the exact description of Religion. And the right to have guns in the US.

@diane a yea the constitution didn't give "nutters age 17 the right to buy and bear arms" either. You obviously know precisely jack and s**t about our constitution from way over there in England and way up there on that high horse, so do a little research before you toss some b******t out.

oh god this just got dark

It's hilarious the way you hypocrites are using just about every logical fallacy in your arguments against religion and gun rights. Also, it's clear you know very little on either subject.

Actually it's only a fallacy (appeal to authority) when either the thing disputed is not something factual (ie it's, say, an opinion of taste) or when the 'authority' is not one, at least for the relevant statement.

Sooo typical!

Weed

This is a big one when working for an organization and you have an idea but you also have superiors...

Again. This is what older people always say.

"Vaccinations cause autism. I know someone who has autism and was vaccinated."...

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!

Isn't this the Godwin point ?

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...

No need of proof, Trump is always right!

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?"

KSI on the left, Logan Paul on the right (What they were saying, not my personal opinion, don't get triggered)

"If abortion gets regulated, all women will abort their babies and soon humanity will go extinct! Won't someone think of the children?! :( "

This is not a great explanation of this fallacy...

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."

There's a deep difference between an "expert" and an expert, that's the root of all the anti-scientific movements.

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