Shop Official Merch

Description: The official artwork of the Fallacious Trump Podcast, along with the title. Patriotic red, white and blue, and whatever colour you choose to print it on.

Description: A definition of a logical fallacy, as described by the Fallacious Trump Podcast

Description: The official Fallacious Trump T-shirt design

Description: A straw man fallacy is the logical error of distorting a claim or argument to make it easier to refute. Help to spread the word about this logical fallacy

Description: A genetic fallacy is the logical error of believing or dismissing a claim based on its origin rather than evidence. Help to spread the word about this logical fallacy

Description: Ampersand design logical fallacies shirt, featuring Strawman, Post Hoc, Ad Hominem and Non Sequitur

Description: The Moving the Goalposts Fallacy describes a situation where someone responds to evidence which refutes their claim by changing the rules and demanding ever more and greater evidence

Description: Ampersand design logical fallacies shirt, featuring Slippery Slope, Tu Quoque, Cherry Picking and No True Scotsman

Description: The best solution for all your last minute press conference needs in downtown Philadelphia Tree by laili hidayati from the Noun Project

Description: The No True Scotsman Fallacy is committed when your existing definition of a particular group is challenged by a member who doesn’t fit the criteria. Rather than adjust the definition, the offending group member is redefined as a non-member of the group.

Description: All the proof anyone needs that Donald Trump is a very stable genius. Person by Guilherme Furtado Woman by Laymik Man by José Manuel de Laá Camera by jauhari TV by Phạm Thanh Lộc All from the Noun Project

Description: A Red Herring is a distraction, anything that sends a conversation off on a tangent and away from the original point. When someone completely avoids a question by bringing up another issue entirely, they are committing a Red Herring fallacy.

Description: A non sequitur fallacy occurs when someone makes a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

Description: Just a few of our favourite Trump nicknames from the Fallacious Trump Podcast

Description: A logical fallacy in which the arguer ignores a large amount of evidence which casts doubt on their claim, carefully selecting only the parts which make their claim sound plausible.

Description: Inspired by the single cause fallacy

Description: The fallacy of Moral Equivalence is committed when someone argues that because the actions of two people or groups are morally equivalent (whether they are or not), those people or groups are just as bad as each other.

Description: The Slippery Slope fallacy is committed when a person assumes if one bad thing happens, then more, and often worse, bad things will inevitably follow.

Description: The False Dilemma Fallacy occurs when someone suggests or implies there are only two possible choices or outcomes, and if you don’t choose one then the other is inevitable

Description: The Magic Words Fallacy occurs when someone uses specific phrasing to avoid consequences for what they say.

Description: The I'm Entitled to my Opinion Fallacy occurs when someone invokes this supposed right in the face of opposing evidence which they can't argue against. Subscribe to the podcast at http://fallacioustrump.com

Description: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy describes a situation where someone collects or examines a large amount of data without deciding in advance exactly what they’re testing, then chooses a sample which provides evidence for their existing opinion. It’s based on a story where an inexperienced gunman fires indiscriminately at the side of a barn, and then draws a target around the largest cluster of bullet holes.

Description: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when someone assumes or implies a causal relationship because two things happen at the same time.

Description: Poisoning the Well is a kind of Ad Hominem fallacy where the attack on the person making a claim happens in advance. By attributing negative traits to someone before they even have the chance to make their argument, the well poisoner primes the listener not to believe what they are about to hear. As it does not seek to address the actual argument at all, this reasoning is fallacious.

Description: The Scapegoating fallacy occurs when someone unfairly blames a problem on an already unpopular person or group.

Description: The Parade of Horribles occurs when someone lists lots of unpleasant but theoretical (or made-up) outcomes that they insist would follow from an action.

Description: The Glittering Generalities Fallacy occurs when someone uses vague, emotionally appealing phrases in place of reason.

Description: The Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy occurs when someone tries to justify an action by pointing out that someone else did it too, or would if they had the chance.

Description: The Holmesian Fallacy occurs when someone assumes they have eliminated all incorrect answers and arrive at their conclusion because it is the only remaining answer they can think of.

Description: The Notable Effort Fallacy occurs when someone relies on effort rather than evidence in evaluating a claim.

Description: The Appeal to Coincidence occur when someone claims luck or coincidence is the reason something happened despite evidence of a more likely cause.

Description: The Contrarian Fallacy occurs when someone reflexively opposes something without any attempt to offer evidence or counter arguments.

Description: Apophasis occurs when someone raises a subject by claiming they are not going to mention it.

Description: Obfuscation occurs when someone provides deliberately vague or confusing information in an attempt to make a claim or present a point of view.

Description: The Pragmatic Fallacy occurs when someone argues a course of action should be undertaken because it 'works', even though it may only work in certain circumstances or only if you define 'works' unconventionally.

Description: Bulverism occurs when someone explains why another is wrong without first establishing that they are wrong.