Description:
The Exact Definition Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously demands their opponent provide a definition solely to score debate points when they can't provide one that meets an arbitrary standard
Description:
The Appeal to Definition Fallacy occurs when someone relies on a specific definition, from a dictionary or other authority, which supports their argument, and ignores the possibility that other definitions are also reasonable.
Description:
The Definist Fallacy occurs when someone deliberately redefines a term in a way that's favorable to their own argument (and is probably a stretch of the real definition)
Description:
The Didactic Fallacy occurs when someone attempts to apply a historical analogy to a current situation but takes the wrong lesson from history or applies it to an inappropriate modern problem.
Description:
The Sanctimony Fallacy occurs when someone claims to be morally superior to their opponent, either without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.
Description:
The Ad Feminam Fallacy occurs when someone attacks their opponent using misogynistic or dismissive rhetoric because they're a woman, rather than engaging with their argument.
Description:
The Square One Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses all the work and research that has been done and pretends we need to start from the beginning to solve or understand a problem.
Description:
The Think of the Children Fallacy occurs when someone invokes an appeal to emotion involving theoretical harm to children to avoid addressing an actual argument.
Description:
The Honor by Association Fallacy occurs when someone tries to make themselves look better because of a connection to a positive person or concept.
Description:
The Ethnocentric Fallacy occurs when someone starts from an assumption that their own culture is superior to others or was more instrumental in history than it really was.
Description:
The Labelling Fallacy occurs when someone assigns a (usually negative) label to a person or idea as a shortcut to avoid providing evidence of how the person or idea is wrong.
Description:
The Appeal to Outdated Data fallacy occurs when someone uses evidence to support their claim, but the evidence has already been debunked or superseded by contradictory data.
Description:
Hypophora occurs when someone answers their own question without giving anyone else a chance to answer. It can be fallacious if the answer given serves them better than other plausible answers.
Description:
The Appeal to Common Sense fallacy occurs when someone invokes "common sense" as a reason to believe something instead of providing evidence.
Description:
The Insignificant Cause Fallacy occurs when someone claims an outcome is due to something which may be a minor factor, but is certainly not the main cause.
Description:
The Fault as Virtue Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously reframes a flaw in themselves or a situation as a good thing to support their argument.
Description:
Truth Rejection occurs when someone addresses a question by specifically mentioning a particular response they won't accept - which happens to be the truth.
Description:
Nutpicking is the practise of choosing an extreme view or fringe member of a group and representing it as typical of that group to support an argument or point of view.
Description:
The Zero Sum fallacy occurs when someone assumes gains and losses in a specific situation are directly balanced when in fact they are not.
Description:
Whataboutism occurs when someone who is accused of something tries to distract and derail the conversation by talking about something somebody else did, which is implied to be equivalent.
Description:
The Tautological Templar Fallacy involves a person claiming their actions are good or right because they are a good person who only does good things.
Description:
The Just Because Fallacy occurs when someone refuses to give a reason or evidence for their assertion, instead expecting others to trust their authority just because.
About Fallacious Trump
