T-Shirts

Description: The If By Whiskey Fallacy is committed when someone either takes such a non-committal stance on an issue that they could be supporting either side, or redefines the terms of the question to answer in the way they want to answer.

Description: The Broken Clock Fallacy occurs when someone suggests that because they were right once (even if it was for the wrong reason) they should be trusted generally.

Description: The Argument to the Purse occurs when someone suggests rich people are smarter, better or more likely to be correct based on their wealth.

Description: The Argument to Moderation Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that true or most reasonable answer is a compromise between two given answers (when in fact one of the given answers may be right)

Description: The Planning Fallacy describes the tendency for people to underestimate the time a task will take to complete.

Description: The Hot Hand Fallacy is committed when someone confuses dependent and independent events and claims that because particular outcome has been happening recently, it will continue to happen.

Description: The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when someone confuses dependent and independent events or claims that a particular outcome is 'due' because it hasn't happened for some time.

Description: The Appeal to Freedom Fallacy is committed when someone claims that they should be entitled to something because any restraint of personal freedom for any reason is unacceptable.

Description: Reductio ad Hitlerum is committed when someone compares their opponent to Hitler without due cause, usually in a Herculean avoidance of nuance.

Description: The Complex Question Fallacy is committed when someone asks a question which includes the answer they are expecting or only allows people to answer in one way.

Description: The Red Baiting Fallacy is committed when someone calls their opponent a communist or a socialist based on little or no evidence and in order to avoid engaging with their actual arguments.

Description: The Appeal to Stupidity is committed when someone dismisses or devalues education, intellect or reason in order to make their uneducated, idiotic, unreasonable claim sound more plausible.

Description: The Magical Thinking Fallacy is committed when someone claims that a real world outcome is the result of a magical cause or process, such as a wish, jinx or curse.

Description: The Appeal to Self-Evident Truth is committed when someone claims something is self-evidently true, thereby avoiding the need to provide any evidence.

Description: The Subverted Support Fallacy is committed when someone tries to describe or explain a phenomenon without first providing any evidence that the phenomenon exists at all. It is a form of Begging the Question in that the existence of the phenomenon is assumed.

Description: The Pooh Pooh Fallacy is committed when someone dismisses a claim, argument or question as not being worthy of discussion, especially as a technique to avoid having a difficult conversation.

Description: The Greater Good Fallacy is committed when someone claims you should accept their argument or make some sacrifice because it's for the greater good of everyone.

Description: The False Consensus fallacy occurs when someone makes an argument based on their assumption that most other peoples behaviour, beliefs, thoughts and motivations are the same as their own.

Description: The Need for First Hand Accounts Fallacy is committed when someone refuses to accept an argument based on any evidence except personal experience.

Description: The Silent Majority Fallacy is committed when someone assumes all or most of the people who aren't vocally disagreeing with them, in fact agree with them.

Description: The Argument by Vehemence is committed when someone gets loud, angry or indignant in place of making an actual argument.

Description: The Toupée Fallacy is a type of Argument from Ignorance where someone doesn't notice evidence that would prove that they don't notice confounding evidence, such as when someone claims that all toupées are bad because they've never seen a convincing one (possibly because if it was convincing, they wouldn't know it was a toupée).

Description: The Appeal to Loyalty Fallacy is committed when someone suggests you should believe a truth claim due to the loyalty you feel to the person making the claim, or suggests that if you don't believe something you are being disloyal.

Description: The Reification Fallacy is committed when someone suggests an abstract concept is real and has intent or agency.

Description: The Incomplete Comparison fallacy is committed when someone suggests a thing is better or worse, without specifying what it is better or worse than.

Description: The Fractal Wrongness Fallacy is committed when someone's argument is based on logic or premises so wrong that they are wrong at every level from detail to worldview.

Description: The Amazing Familiarity Fallacy is committed when someone makes an argument based on information they couldn't possibly have, such as what someone else is thinking.

Description: The Argument from Silence Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that no response from their opponent is proof that they are right.

Description: The Survivorship Bias Fallacy is committed when someone makes an argument based on a biased sample that only includes items that have survived some kind of selection pressure.

Description: The Conflating Views Fallacy is committed when someone conflates the opinions or actions of multiple people within a group and suggests if those views conflict that the group is hypocritical.

Description: The Gotcha Argument is used by people who are backing into a corner and unable to answer a tough question. So they accuse their opponent of asking a 'gotcha' question.

Description: The Appeal to Fiction Fallacy is committed when someone tries to use something that happened in a work of fiction to back up their claim about the real world.

Description: The Broken Window Fallacy is committed when someone tries to claim when a bad thing happens, that good things will result from it, which makes it OK.

Description: The Sunk Cost Fallacy is committed when someone justifies maintaining or extending a course of action based on the cost already incurred (whether in terms of money, time, effort or intellectual capital).

Description: The Double Standard Fallacy is committed when someone treats two very similar situations differently (usually to their advantage) with no explanation why.

Description: The Appeal to Nature is committed when someone assumes that something that is natural is therefore good, or something that is unnatural or artificial is therefore bad.