T-Shirts

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 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: Chronocentrism occurs when someone assumes a specific time period is inherently better or more important than all others.

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Description: The Appeal to Outdated Data fallacy occurs when someone uses evidence to support their claim, but the evidence has already been debunked or superseded by contradictory data.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: The Furtive Fallacy occurs when someone assumes that significant events are due to hidden actions by nefarious powerful people.

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.

Description: The Iron Man fallacy is committed when someone misrepresents their own position (or one they agree with) to suggest it is in fact a much stronger position that nobody could argue with.

Description: The Morton's Fork Fallacy is committed when someone suggests two seemingly different choices actually lead to the same negative result.

Description: The False Balance Fallacy is committed when someone suggests that both sides of an issue are equally worthy of debate or consideration, even when most or all the evidence favors one side.