Common Logical Fallacies In Political Arguments

[Pogo]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

Another common one is "Proof by assertion".

Where someone makes a claim, you provide documented evidence that the claim is false, and they dismiss or ignore the fact that you addressed their point, and them simply repeat it.

I call that Ipse Dixit. I just like the sound of it.

I thought I was the only one who used that expression.

Almost sounds like a soft drink, donut?

 

[martybegan]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."

That's one version, but the one I am talking about is that my view is INVALID because I am not a supreme court justice.

 

[Pogo]

Let me translate this thread for you:

"I'M SMARTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I SAY SO".

The Pout (also The Silent Treatment, Noncooperation):. An Argumentum ad Baculam that arbitrarily rejects or gives up on dialogue before it is concluded.

I call that one "he ran away".
Known in England as "he's buggered off --- so he has, he's scarpered"

 

[g5000]

Hitting the bong a bit early, eh?

Ad Hominen Fallacy.

I've got it on my scorecard as "Fallacy of the Included Piddle".

These are all rampant on this forum as well, with one that was not listed, Hasty Generalization/Composition (related), which is prolly Number One on the Shit Parade here with the possible exception of Ad Hom.

Post Hoc also needs a mention.

Yeah, Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

 

[Pogo]

The most important issue in a political argument is the effect of media propaganda. Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Nazis have shown that propaganda is the most important tool of a corrupt government. When the government controls information any atrocity can be justified. It's a known fact that the mainstream media has been a tool of the democrat party since FDR was president. Truman lost 50,000 Troops in a botched operation in Korea but the liberal media treated him to a tickertape parade. JFK illegally used the CIA to raise, train and equip an illegal invasion army but the fake Camelot was all we heard from the liberal media. The ATF's botched raid on Ruby Ridge and later the Branch Dividians ended up with tanks and poison gas and the incineration of 80 men women and children. The liberal media said they deserved it. Clinton defiled the Oval Office with depraved sexual acts and the liberal media said it was nobody's business but his. Generations of kids know how to put a condom on a banana but have little concept of the Constitution and the greatest system of government in the world.

OK good exercise. I get:

1. Ad hom ("Democrat" party)
2. Ipse dixit / Populum (It's a known fact that....)
3. Hasty Generalization (all we heard from the...)
4. Assuming facts not in evidence (...liberal media)
5. Strawman / Composition (The liberal media said...) (repeated next line)

 

[Pogo]

Hitting the bong a bit early, eh?

Ad Hominen Fallacy.

I've got it on my scorecard as "Fallacy of the Included Piddle".

These are all rampant on this forum as well, with one that was not listed, Hasty Generalization/Composition (related), which is prolly Number One on the Shit Parade here with the possible exception of Ad Hom.

Post Hoc also needs a mention.

Yeah, Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking a donkey. Therefore, all Demopubs are donkey fuckers."

"And my opponent in this debate has in the past espoused positions held in common with (my generalized view of) Demopubs, therefore by extension my opponent fucks donkeys ."

 

[g5000]

I have added some of the fallacies in subsequent posts to the OP.

 

[Pogo]

Two more....

Poisoning the Well and
Moving the Goalposts

(2) is self-explanatory..... losing an argument or incapable of continuing, arguer changes terms of the argument in midstream

Excellent example of (1) is here where DigitalDrifter is actually arguing that because the person who shot a video is named Shaun King (I have no clue who that is) --- the events recorded by the video camera can be dismissed.

Which leads us to Pointless Contrarianism --- the practice of simply arguing for its own sake, regardless whether one has facts or a logical conclusion. These details seem to be unimportant to the Contrarians. Related to Doublethink -- which is very popular in the last few days.

 

[g5000]

Two more....

Poisoning the Well and
Moving the Goalposts

Ah, yes.

Poisoning the Well: "The iguana fucker who hates America was on TV last night, and said..."

Moving the Goalposts: "Give me ONE example of a Demopub sneezing in public." Evidence is then presented of a Demopub sneezing in public. "Not good enough. Give me ONE example of a Demopub sneezing in public while juggling saucers!"

 

[Pogo]

Also the Speculation Fallacy:

"If a Demoplican had done this you Republicrats would be saying...."

Form of Red Herring.

 

[Pogo]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

 

[Correll]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

 

[Pogo]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

 

[Correll]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

But if it's a Joe Niekro Knuckleball technique, pointing that out, even if Poster 2 is wrong about the directness of the connection, is still a valid point, not a logical fallacy.

 

[Pogo]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

But if it's a Joe Niekro Knuckleball technique, pointing that out, even if Poster 2 is wrong about the directness of the connection, is still a valid point, not a logical fallacy.

Again, not if poster 2's point is that poster 1 is a "Joe Niekro disciple".
THAT is the fallacy I'm trying to describe --- the fabricated association between the opponent and the imaginary authority.

 

[bripat9643]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

Confirmation Bias: Remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses". Actively seeking out news stories which align with one's belief system, while denying or ignoring the majority which do not.

This problem is enhanced by the fact that only negative events make the news, while non-events do not.

For example, let's return to our brain surgeons and circus clown. 97,000 successful surgeries do not make the news. But 3,000 failed ones do, and that is all the circus clown and his followers talk about. Every time a brain surgeon makes an error, that gets big air play until the circus clown has a lot of people convinced that brain surgeons are a menace to society and that brain surgery would be better down by circus clowns.

Every time a brain surgeon makes a mistake, the propaganda outlets scream it loud and far and wide, with doom music to add a little Appeal To Emotion. "Haul out the coma lady! These brain surgeons are trying to destroy America!!!"

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."


Argument from Inertia: Magical thinking. The more often you repeat something, the truer it becomes, no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Usually because it is too painful to admit one's belief system is wrong.

You should have called your OP "Common leftwing arguments"

 

[bripat9643]

Ad hominem is Trump's favorite.

It's also your favorite, douche bag.

 

[SwimExpert]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

Confirmation Bias: Remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses". Actively seeking out news stories which align with one's belief system, while denying or ignoring the majority which do not.

This problem is enhanced by the fact that only negative events make the news, while non-events do not.

For example, let's return to our brain surgeons and circus clown. 97,000 successful surgeries do not make the news. But 3,000 failed ones do, and that is all the circus clown and his followers talk about. Every time a brain surgeon makes an error, that gets big air play until the circus clown has a lot of people convinced that brain surgeons are a menace to society and that brain surgery would be better down by circus clowns.

Every time a brain surgeon makes a mistake, the propaganda outlets scream it loud and far and wide, with doom music to add a little Appeal To Emotion. "Haul out the coma lady! These brain surgeons are trying to destroy America!!!"

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."


Argument from Inertia: Magical thinking. The more often you repeat something, the truer it becomes, no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Usually because it is too painful to admit one's belief system is wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy. Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

 

[Correll]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

Yeah, I got that.
I think you are missing the point that the real issue in that scenario, is that Poster 1 is using propaganda techniques instead of engaging in honest dialog.

The Poisoning the Well is relatively minor aspect of the real issue.