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.

"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 ?

The trouble is when valid comparisons are discounted because of this.

Works every time!

ANTIFA, SJW's, extreme liberals and leftwingers in a nutshell.

Fact: this technique won't work without a good wand.

If it's accurate and factual, it is not a fallacy.

Me: NEVER SPEAK OF THAT EVIL, EVIL MAN

He HAS a point ... I'm not saying it's a valid point

Godwin’s law and reductio ad absurdum combined?

Pretty usual in Germany. We call it "die Nazikeule auspacken" :-)

SJWs?

Hitler was a roman catholic.

This is a fanciful example of a simple exaggerated translation. In political discussions, comparison to Hitler (or NSDAP) actually matters. The underlying caveat is 'correlation does not equal causation', for example Hitler was statist and racist, but it does not mean that anyone whose views on government gravitate towards statism must necessarily be racist (and this is how this eristic trope works). Oh, and this not 'reductio ad Hitlerum', but rather 'argumentum ad Hitlerum' (not to mention that the declension of the Hitler's name seems incorrect, but was left unchanged to maintain similarity to the word 'absurdum').

This needs to come with the caveat that is so often forgotten that when someone states that they have an opinion that is functionally identical to one held by Hitler... Jesus Christ an actual Nazi doesn’t stop being an actual Nazi because everyone comparing someone to Hitler MUST be wrong.

lol

Sounds like a typical leftist

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