Description:
The Appeal to Accomplishment Fallacy is committed when someone refers to their abilities or achievements as a reason to believe them rather than using arguments.
Description:
The McNamara Fallacy is committed when someone treats something as important because it is easy to measure, or dismisses something as unimportant because it is hard to measure.
Description:
The fallacy of Ignoring Linear Time is committed when someone acts like because something hasn't happened yet then it can't or won't happen.
Description:
The Accent Fallacy is committed when the meaning of a sentence or phrase is changed by placing the emphasis on a different part, or leaving emphasis ambiguous in writing.
Description:
The Appeal to Sincerity fallacy is committed when someone tries to convince you of just how sincerely they believe in their claims, rather than offering evidence to back them up.
Description:
The Appeal to Anonymous Authority is committed when someone cites an authority to back up a claim, but the authority is unnamed, vague or similarly uncheckable.
Description:
The Imposter Fallacy is committed when someone claims without sufficient evidence that a member of their group who is making them look bad is actually an infiltrator from another group.
Description:
The Failing Occam's Razor Fallacy is committed when someone ignores an obvious or simple explanation for something and chooses a far-fetched hypothesis instead.
Description:
The Argumentum ad Lunam Fallacy is committed when someone compares putting a man on the moon (or another very hard thing that has been achieved) to a hard thing that has yet to be achieved.
Description:
The Promised Proof Fallacy is committed when someone can't back up their claims with anything other than some currently non-existent proof that they claim will appear later.
Description:
The Argument from Consequences occurs when someone makes a truth claim based on how good (or bad) things would be if the claim was in fact true.
Description:
The Thought-Terminating Cliché occurs when someone uses a well known or common phrase as a way of ending the debate and accepting no further thoughts on the matter.
Description:
The Prosecutor's Fallacy is committed when someone mixes up the conditionals when stating a probability or doesn't factor the conditionals in at all.
Description:
The Contextomy Fallacy is committed when someone uses another person's quote out of context to change the intended meaning and support their own argument.
Description:
The Argument by Slogan Fallacy is committed when someone uses a short snappy phrase to avoid making an argument that actually requires some nuance, explanation or evidence.
Description:
The Argument by Gibberish Fallacy is committed when someone uses jargon or nonsense in place of an argument or an answer because they are unable to provide a coherent, useful or logical response.
Description:
The Politician's Fallacy is committed when someone recognises that 'something' must be done about a problem and assumes that any 'something' will do.
Description:
The Accelerating Truth Fallacy is committed when someone uses their own previous assertions as evidence or proof that those assertions are true.
Description:
The Base Rate Fallacy is committed when someone offers a statistic as evidence without considering (or including) the prior probability of one or more of the factors involved.
Description:
The Appeal to the Law is committed when someone equates the legality of an act with its morality, i.e. saying whatever they did was fine, because there's no law against it.
Description:
The Argument by Rhyme Fallacy is committed when someone uses a rhyming slogan in place of an argument in an attempt to sway opinion or simplify a complex issue.
Description:
The Alleged Certainty Fallacy is committed when someone makes a claim and then alleges that everyone knows it's true, thereby avoiding the need to offer any evidence.
Description:
The Historical Fallacy is committed when someone assumes the current situation was always inevitable and ignores or denies the context of what led up to it.
Description:
The Rhetorical Question Fallacy is a way of accusing people of something while appearing to be 'just asking questions'. Often the questions being asked have already been debunked or already have a satisfactory answer.
Description:
The Hedging Fallacy is committed when someone changes their story or point of view and then acts like nothing has changed and they always thought like that.
About Fallacious Trump
