22 LOGICAL FALLACIES

What are logical fallacies?

When trying to make a case or argument where logic is missing or something in the case is not clear Is not necessarily a false statement Can be useful in debates

Why learn logical fallacies?

Point them out when an opponent uses one or offer reasoning if you use them Make you look smart Impresses judges Can remove an argument from the table not just weaken it You can know when you are using them and prepare for your opponents argument rather than being taken off guard and unprepared

How do you point them out?

State the name of fallacy in Latin and English making sure to use the phrase logical fallacy Tell everyone what the fallacy means and why it is wrong but do it without sounding pedantic (smarter than everyone else) Give a really obvious example of why the fallacy is incorrect, preferably the example should also be an unfavorable analogy for your opponents case Point out why the fallacy matters to the debate round

Argumentun ad antiquitatem

The argument to antiquity or tradition Argument that a policy, behavior or practice is right or acceptable because its always been done that way Example: every great civilization in history has provided states subsidies for art and culture Try to avoid it but if you do use it, try to give a reason why it should be considered

Argumentum ad hominem
Argument directed at the person Attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated and idea rather than the idea itself; can also be an attack on the source of information my opponents are fascists or Richard Nixon was liar and a cheat Can also be used when the person talking has something to gain from the policy (example: Bill Gates talking against anti-trust legislation)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argument to ignorance Assuming something is true simple because it hasnt been proven false (example: global warming is true because nobody has demonstrated conclusively it is not) Which ever team/person has burden of proof (usually affirmative) has to be more careful in using this fallacy Example: Prosecution who says that no alibi means guilty vs.. Defense saying prosecution didnt prove case so defendant is not guilty

Argument ad logicam
Argument to logic Assuming that something is false simply because proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid Also known as Straw Man argument Burden of proof determines whether it is fallacy or not (if affirmative team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate even if there exist other arguments not presented that could have supported the case)

Argumentum ad misericordian
Argument or appeal to pity Example: Think of all the poor, starving people in Ethiopia. How can we not help them? This doesnt mean you cant argue for something like aid to Ethiopia, what it does mean is that you cant just use emotional pleas Do not use it unless the opposition has ONLY offered emotional pleas

Argumentum ad nauseam
Argument to the point of disgust (repetition) Trying to prove something by saying it again and again Stating a main point over and over again instead of real arguments Make sure you SUPPORT your main points

Argumentum ad numerum
Argument or appeal to numbers Attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that its true Example: 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions Dont confuse this with argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum
Appeal to people or to popularity Trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you Narrowly designates an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity like your judges

Argumentum ad verecundiam
Argument or appeal to authority Someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area Example: Quoting Einstein on politics Only use this when they dont use qualified quotes to support the same point and/or imply some policy is right because so-and-so thought so

Circulus in demonstrando
Circular argument Someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing Always illegitimate but hard to spot

Complex Question
Question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction Example: Have you stopped beating your wife or Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems? Only a fallacy when used for something that hasnt been proved

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

With this, therefore because of this Mistaking correlation for causation (because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other) Example: President Clinton has great economic policies, just look at how great the economy is Usually called post hoc

Dicto simpliciter
Sweeping generalization Making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case; aka stereotyping Example: Women on average are not as strong as mean and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women cant pull their weight in a military unit. When pointing it out in a round, try not to use the Latin and just attack the generalization

Nature, appeal to
Assuming that whatever is natural or consistent with nature is good or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad Fairly rare, but usually seen in environmentalist argument

Naturalistic Fallacy
Trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (about values) from statements of fact alone Any inference of fact is another fact NOT a value The medicine will prevent you from dying does not lead to you should take this medicine Examples include argumentum ad antiquities or appeal to nature

Non Sequitur
It does not follow Stating as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises Example: Racism is wrong, therefore, we need affirmative action Try to to use this for every argument but use it when the opposition is trying to construct A lead to B leads to C without justifying each step in the chain

Petitio Principii
Begging the question Assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that your are trying to prove Very similar to circular argument Occurs when a question has been asked before in the discussion then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered Example: The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is valid form of free expression. And since its free expression, it shouldnt be banned

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

After this, therefore because of this Assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B Example: most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women. Similar to cum hoc ergo prompter hoc

Red herring
Introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand Example: The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates - but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help? It is not fallacious to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind

Slippery slope
Not always a fallacy Argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken without

showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies

Example: If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know well legalize heroin, LSD and crack cocaine.

Straw man
Refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebodys argument rather than the actual argument theyve made Putting words into someone elses mouth or misinterpreting something said

Tu quoque
You too Defending an error in ones reasoning by pointing out that ones opponent has made the same error Example: They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too. Can be helpful if both sides have done a bad job of debating and you want to point that out to the judges