Shorts

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: UK spelling of Radicalised. (US spelling also available)

Description: US spelling of Radicalized. (UK spelling also available)

Description: US spelling of Radicalized, with broad gesturing. (UK spelling also available)

Description: UK spelling of Radicalised, with broad gesturing. (US spelling also available)

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: Spin Doctoring occurs when people manipulate or frame information to control public perception.

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 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 Appeal to Fame Fallacy occurs when someone equates fame with being trustworthy

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 Fallacy Fallacy occurs when you assume a claim is false because a logical fallacy was used during arguments supporting the claim.

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 Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that leads people to base their whole opinion of someone on a single positive or negative trait.

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 Jingoism Fallacy occurs when someone attempts to appeal to patriotic emotions rather than reason to persuade others.

Description: The Golden Hammer Fallacy occurs when someone assumes it is sensible to rely on a single tool or method to solve every problem.

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 Euphemism Fallacy occurs when someone uses a misleadingly positive word or phrase in order to avoid a negative reality.

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 Accident Fallacy is committed when someone applies a general rule to a specific situation which is actually an exception to the rule.

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.

Description: The Argumentum ad Fastidium, or Argument from Disgust, occurs when someone claims that because they find something unpleasant that means it is morally or factually wrong.

Description: The fallacy of Factoid Propagation is committed when someone uses a 'fact' they heard to support their position, without knowing (or caring) if the fact is true or not.

Description: The Fallacy of Assuming a Tell is committed when someone convinces themselves that they've identified a way of spotting secret information and then uses that as evidence in their reasoning.