Every logical fallacy,
in alpha order

Appeal to Nature (The Green Fallacy): Assumes that anything “natural” is inherently good. “This tea is organic and therefore must be healthier than synthetic options.”

Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam): Seeking support by evoking sympathy rather than addressing the argument itself. “You should pass my bill; think of all the poor children affected.”

Appeal to Tradition (Conservative Bias): Justifying an argument based solely on historical precedent. “Women have always been paid less, so it’s not worth changing the system.”

Appeasement: Giving in to demands to avoid conflict, often leading to negative behavior. “Just let the rude customers have their way to keep them quiet.”

Argument from Consequences (Outcome Bias): Dismissing a claim due to potential negative outcomes if it were true. “If climate change were real, it would lead to unmanageable chaos, which cannot be the case.”

Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): Asserting that a lack of evidence for or against a claim proves it true or false. “Since we can’t prove aliens don’t exist, they must be out there.”

Argument from Incredulity: Rejecting a proposal simply because it seems too unlikely or unbelievable. “There’s no way humans could evolve from apes; it’s too outlandish!”

Argument from Inertia: Continuing a failing course of action to avoid admitting a mistake. “We’ve always used this software, so we can’t change now, even if it fails.”

Argument from Motives (Questioning Motives): Dismissing an argument based solely on the alleged bad intentions of its proponent. “He supports healthcare reform, but he profits from insurance; he can’t be trusted.”

"The recent news makes it seem crime has spiked, ignoring long-term trends.”

Argumentum ad Baculum (Argument from the Club): Coercing agreement through threats or force. “If you don’t comply with my demands, you will face consequences.”

Argumentum ad Mysteriam: Using mystical or obscure explanations to distract from logical reasoning. “Understanding this ancient text requires a specialized insight, which normal people won’t grasp.”

Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): Assuming silence on a subject proves a point. “Since the witness didn’t testify, they must not have anything credible to say.”

Availability Bias (Attention Bias): Favoring information that is readily accessible over more accurate but less obvious data. “The recent news makes it seem crime has spiked, ignoring long-term trends.”

Bandwagon Fallacy (Argument from Common Sense): Believing something is true because many people support it. “Everyone believes he’s the best candidate, so he must be!”

Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy: Delegating moral and ethical reasoning to an authority figure. “You don’t need to worry; my superior will take care of this issue.”

Big “But” Fallacy (Special Pleading): Contradicting a broadly accepted principle with an exception. “We value free speech, but in this case of hate speech, we can limit it.”

Big Lie Technique: Repeatedly asserting a falsehood until it is accepted as truth. “If you tell his supporters he won millions of votes enough times, they may start to believe it.”

Blind Loyalty (Blind Obedience): Justifying actions solely based on allegiance to a figure or group. “I followed orders because I trust my leader completely.”

“He only reads articles that confirm his political views.”

Blood is Thicker than Water (Favoritism): Prioritizing family or close ties over objective reasoning. “I have to hire my brother instead of the more qualified candidate.”

Brainwashing: Using extreme methods to alter someone’s beliefs or opinions. “He was subjected to intense indoctrination methods to change his views.”

Bribery (Material Persuasion): Offering something of value to manipulate decisions. “The politician accepted money to alter the legislation.”

Calling “Cards”: Dismissing legitimate objections as mere tactics in an argument. “You’re just playing the ‘race card’ to divert attention from the real issue.”

Circular Reasoning (Vicious Circle): Using a conclusion as a premise without evidence. “You can’t trust him because he lies; he’s a liar!”

Complex Question: Asking a question that contains an assumption, which can’t be answered truthfully. “When are you going to stop lying in your reports?”

Confirmation Bias: Seeking out information that supports one’s existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. “He only reads articles that confirm his political views.”

Cost Bias: Overvaluing an expensive item regardless of its inherent quality. “I paid a lot for this car, so it must be better than a cheaper model.”

Default Bias: Accepting the status quo without questioning its merit. “Let’s stick to our old policies; they’ve worked in the past.”

“Politicians often use terms that resonate with one base but confuse others.”

Defensiveness: Rationale that protects one’s previous actions regardless of new evidence. “I still believe I voted wisely, despite recent controversies.”

Deliberate Ignorance: Choosing to ignore facts that contradict one’s beliefs. “I don’t care what the studies show; I’m sticking to what I believe.”

Diminished Responsibility: Arguing for leniency based on impaired judgment. “He shouldn’t be punished for his actions; he was under stress.”

Disciplinary Blinders: Ignoring relevant evidence from outside one’s field of study. “That’s interesting, but it’s not what we typically discuss in our discipline.”

Dog-Whistle Politics: Using coded language to appeal to specific groups without direct references. “Politicians often use terms that resonate with one base but confuse others.”

Draw Your Own Conclusion Fallacy: Expecting the audience to interpret an argument without guiding them. “Here’s the data—draw your own conclusions.”

Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias where individuals with low ability overestimate their competence. “He thinks he knows everything about politics with just a few hours of research.”

E for Effort: Valuing achievements based solely on the effort put forth rather than the outcomes. “She tried really hard, so her project deserves recognition.”

Either/Or Reasoning: Presenting a situation as having only two alternatives when more options exist. “You either support this plan or you don’t care about the problem!”

“Shouting obscenities doesn’t strengthen your argument.”

Equivocation: Using ambiguous language to mislead or draw false conclusions. “He didn’t lie; he just interpreted the question differently.”

Eschatological Fallacy: Claiming imminent end-of-world scenarios as a basis for actions. “Since the world is ending soon, we can skip preparations for it.”

Esoteric Knowledge: Assertively claiming that only a select few can understand specific information. “You wouldn’t understand this theory; it’s for advanced scholars.”

Essentializing: Reducing a person to a single characteristic that purportedly defines them. “He’s just a jock, and that’s all you need to know about him.”

Etymological Fallacy: Misinterpreting a word based on its historical origin rather than its current use. “The word ‘mollusk’ sounds derogatory, so it must be disrespectful.”

Excluded Middle: Assuming that if some of something is good, then more is always better. “If one cookie is good, a whole dozen must be great!”

F-Bomb (Cursing): Using profane language to emphasize points, often detracting from the argument’s validity. “Shouting obscenities doesn’t strengthen your argument.”

False Analogy: Incorrectly comparing two things that are not analogous to sway judgment. “Running a country is like running a household; they should be managed the same.”

Finish the Job: Arguing that an action must continue simply because it was started. “Though it’s causing harm, we must see this project through to its end.”

“I can’t fix this economic issue; I wish I had a magic wand.”

Free Speech Fallacy: Claiming one can say anything without fear of modern-day repercussions. “I can say whatever I want, and no one should criticize me!”

Fundamental Attribution Error: Judging others’ actions based on perceived character flaws rather than circumstance. “She missed work because she’s lazy, not because she was sick.”

Gaslighting: Manipulating someone into questioning their reality or perceptions. “You must be imagining things; that didn’t happen.”

Guilt by Association: Discrediting an argument by link to an unsavory group or individual. “His supporters are criminals; therefore, his ideas must also be bad.”

Half Truth (Card Stacking): Delivering only part of the evidence to support a conclusion, omitting crucial details. “The economy is growing! But he forgot to mention it’s only for the rich.”

Hero-Busting: Dismissing historical figures’ achievements due to their flaws. “Lincoln freed the slaves, but he was also racist.”

Heroes All: Claiming everyone is a hero, diminishing the concept of heroism. “All participants in the event are heroes just for showing up.”

Hoyle’s Fallacy: Assuming rare events cannot occur merely due to low probability. “Winning the lottery is impossible because the odds are against it.”

I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: Expressing powerlessness to change objectionable circumstances while ignoring potential actions. “I can’t fix this economic issue; I wish I had a magic wand.”

“He’s arguing against the health benefits of vaccines while knowing the evidence proves otherwise.”

Identity Fallacy (Identity Politics): Discrediting arguments based solely on the speaker’s social identity. “You cannot have an opinion on this issue because you’re not a member of our group.”

Infotainment: Blending factual information and entertainment to mislead audiences. “This news show is more about entertainment than journalism.”

Job’s Comforter Fallacy: Incorrectly assuming misfortune is a result of someone’s sin. “The hurricane is divine punishment for their wickedness.”

Just Do It: Forcing decision-making, disregarding moral implications. “Just follow orders without questioning the ethics involved.”

Just Plain Folks: Presenting oneself as relatable to gain trust, often while being disingenuous. “I’m just one of you who understands your struggles.”

Law of Unintended Consequences: Asserting that any action will inevitably lead to unforeseen complications. “If we intervene, we risk creating more chaos.”

Lying with Statistics: Misusing data to lend credibility to misleading claims. “The percentage of people using our product has increased! But it was a tiny sample size.”

Magical Thinking: Believing that one can influence reality through sheer will or belief. “If we just believe hard enough, good things will happen.”

Mala Fides (Bad Faith): Knowing an argument is flawed yet presenting it as valid. “He’s arguing against the health benefits of vaccines while knowing the evidence proves otherwise.”

“Listen to this heart-wrenching story to understand my point.”

Measurability: Prioritizing quantifiable data over qualitative insights. “If we can’t measure happiness, it’s not worth exploring.”

Mind-reading: Incorrectly inferring others’ thoughts without evidence. “I know he dislikes me; I can just tell.”

Moral Licensing: Justifying harmful actions due to prior good behavior. “I can cheat a little; I helped so many people this week!”

Moral Superiority: Assuming one’s beliefs are inherently better than others, justifying extreme actions. “We’re fighting for a noble cause, so anything we do is justified.”

Mortification: Inflicting self-pain or deprivation for perceived moral improvement. “Enduring pain makes me stronger and more virtuous.”

Moving the Goalposts: Changing the criteria for success once they are met. “Now that you’ve passed this review, you need to demonstrate even more achievements to qualify.”

MYOB (Mind Your Own Business): Dismissing legitimate criticism with claims of privacy. “It’s my life; you shouldn’t judge.”

Name-Calling: Discrediting arguments by labeling and stigmatizing opponents. “Don’t listen to him; he’s just a loser.”

Narrative Fallacy: Persuading with emotionally charged stories rather than logical argument. “Listen to this heart-wrenching story to understand my point.”

“Oops, I forgot to mention he has a history of fraud!”

NIMBY Fallacy (Not in My Back Yard): Ignoring problems that don’t directly impact oneself. “Sure, poverty is a problem, but not in my neighborhood!”

No Discussion: Rejecting dialogue as an option. “This is the decision; there’s no point in arguing.”

Non-recognition: Failing to acknowledge or accept certain realities. “I refuse to recognize that issue as a valid concern.”

Non Sequitur: Presenting an argument without logical support. “If you don’t buy my product, the sun will never shine again!”

Nothing New Under the Sun: Believing that everything is a repetition of past events. “This new trend is just like what happened back in the ’60s.”

Olfactory Rhetoric: Judging individuals based on their perceived cleanliness or smell. “Those people smell awful; I can’t take them seriously!”

Oops!: Introducing sudden, irrelevant facts at a critical moment. “Oops, I forgot to mention he has a history of fraud!”

Othering: Marginalizing and dehumanizing those who are different. “People from that area are so backwards; they don’t understand our values.”

Overexplanation: Providing unnecessary details that confuse rather than clarify. “To put it simply, but first, I need to explain in six different ways…”

“We must only use inclusive terminology to prevent hurt feelings.”

Overgeneralization: Making broad assumptions based on limited evidence. “I’ve met two rude kids from that school, so all of them must be terrible.”

Paralysis of Analysis: Failing to act due to overthinking a situation. “I can’t decide, so I probably shouldn’t do anything.”

Passive Voice Fallacy: Hiding the subject of blame in a passive construction. “Mistakes were made; let’s move on.”

Paternalism: Treating people condescendingly, suppressing their arguments. “You don’t understand this issue; let me explain it to you.”

Personalization: Taking blame for external events beyond one’s control. “It’s my fault it rained on the day of the festival.”

Plain Truth Fallacy: Simplifying complex truths to suit an argument. “It’s just common sense that we should do this.”

Plausible Deniability: Avoiding responsibility by claiming ignorance of wrongdoing. “I didn’t know about the deal; I was just following orders.”

Playing on Emotion: Manipulating feelings rather than using logical arguments. “You should donate to our cause; think of the heartbroken families!”

Political Correctness (PC): Nazifying language to protect against offense. “We must only use inclusive terminology to prevent hurt feelings.”

 “Using that reasoning is just like how Hitler justified his actions.”

Pollyanna Principle: Assuming everyone thinks positively like you do. “Everyone shares my love of teamwork and kindness.”

Positive Thinking Fallacy: Assuming that positive thoughts alone can change outcomes. “If I think positively enough, everything will work out.”

Post Hoc Argument: Concluding causation from temporal succession. “I wore my lucky shirt and we won; it must be magic.”

Pout: Withdrawing from discussions to assert control. “If you don’t agree with me, I won’t talk to you anymore!”

Procrustean Fallacy: Applying rigid standards to diverse situations. “Everyone should fit this model for success, regardless of their unique circumstances.”

Prosopology (Reciting the Litany): Overly dramatizing names or personas to evoke emotion. “We must remember the victims by listing every name on this wall.”

Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant topics to distract from the issue. “Why discuss climate change when crime rates are on the rise?”

Reductio ad Hitlerum: Discrediting arguments by association with Hitler. “Using that reasoning is just like how Hitler justified his actions.”

Reductionism: Simplifying complex issues into overly simplistic terms. “The solution to poverty is just to give them jobs.”

“Prove that climate change isn’t real!”

Reifying: Treating abstract concepts as tangible entities. “Freedom is a real thing we must defend at all costs.”

Romantic Rebel: Claiming validity purely from opposition to the norm. “I am right because I stand against the mainstream.”

Save the Children Fallacy: Manipulating emotions for political motives by emphasizing suffering children. “You must support our cause to stop the suffering children in the war!”

Scapegoating: Blaming an individual or group for broader issues. “If we just got rid of all immigrants, crime would disappear.”

Scare Tactics: Using fear to manipulate decision-making. “If you don’t support this bill, your safety will be compromised!”

Scoring: Linking unrelated concepts or actions to sports terminology to trivialize serious issues. “Our team is going to score big on this policy change!”

Scripted Message: Using pre-determined phrases to convey specific narratives. “Just repeat the talking points we discussed about healthcare.”

Sending the Wrong Message: Discouraging honest actions to avoid misinterpretation by others. “If we admit our faults, it sends the wrong message.”

Shifting the Burden of Proof: Placing the onus of proof on the opponent rather than the claimant. “Prove that climate change isn’t real!”

“This car is the best because a celebrity drives it.”

Shopping Hungry Fallacy: Making poor decisions under emotional pressure. “I regretted buying that car ‘in the heat of the moment’ after I lost my job.”

Silent Majority Fallacy: Claiming unsupported backing from an invisible group. “Many people back me; you just can’t hear them.”

Simpleton’s Fallacy: Ignoring expertise in favor of populist sentiment. “Everybody’s opinion matters, even on complex scientific issues.”

Slippery Slope: Asserting that one action will lead to many negative outcomes. “If we allow this protest, soon there will be riots everywhere!”

Snow Job: Confusing audiences with an overwhelming amount of irrelevant information. “He bombarded us with data we couldn’t possibly digest in time.”

Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy: Asserting all military personnel deserve respect regardless of actions or motives. “All who served should be honored, no matter what they did.”

Standard Version Fallacy: Accepting one authoritative version as the only credible interpretation. “Only the King James Bible can be trusted for religious truth.”

Star Power: Relying on the endorsements of famous individuals to validate an argument. “This car is the best because a celebrity drives it.”

Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. “She’s against free speech because she wants to ban all dissent!”

“This product is endorsed by a famous hero, so it must be great!”

Taboo: Declaring certain topics off-limits for discussion. “Let’s not mention past mistakes; that’s taboo.”

They’re All Crooks: Rejecting engagement in public affairs due to cynicism about all political actors. “Why bother voting? They’re all dishonest politicians.”

Third Person Effect: Believing media messages influence others more than oneself. “I can see why people fall for fake news; but I’m smarter than that!”

Thousand Flowers Fallacy: Encouraging discussion only to identify and punish dissenting voices later. “Let’s hear everyone’s ideas so we can know who needs to be silenced.”

Throwing Good Money After Bad: Continuing investments in failing ventures rather than cut losses. “I have to invest more into this losing project!”

TINA (There Is No Alternative): Proclaiming that there are no other viable options besides the current course. “We have to accept this policy; there’s no other choice.”

Tone Policing: Discrediting arguments based on emotional delivery. “Calm down; if you can’t discuss that rationally, then your point doesn’t matter.”

Transfer: Associating a respected figure with an unrelated idea to lend credibility. “This product is endorsed by a famous hero, so it must be great!”

Trust Your Gut: Favoring instinct over rational evidence in decision-making. “I just feel that this is the right choice.”

“If we don’t act, an apocalypse could happen!”

Tu Quoque (You Too): Deflecting criticism by pointing out the critic’s own failures. “You shouldn’t criticize my spending habits when you buy unnecessary things too!”

Two-sides Fallacy: Falsely equating the significance of two opposing viewpoints. “Scientists and flat-earth theorists both have valid points!”

Two Truths: Holding contradictory beliefs within different contexts without recognizing the conflict. “In one setting, it’s ok, but in another, it’s totally unacceptable.”

Venting: Justifying inflammatory comments as harmless because it’s “just venting.” “I was just letting off steam; you can’t hold that against me!”

Venue: Dismissing arguments based on their context rather than content. “This debate isn’t the right platform for discussing foreign policy.”

We Have to Do Something: Taking action without considering its validity or consequences due to pressure or emotion. “In response to the crisis, we need to act now without delay!”

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence without sufficient proof. “If there are rumors, something must be going on!”

Wisdom of the Crowd: Assuming a group decision is correct simply because it is popular. “So many people support this initiative, it must be the right choice.”

Worst-Case Fallacy: Emphasizing the most catastrophic outcomes to manipulate decisions. “If we don’t act, an apocalypse could happen!”

“There will be no exceptions to those disrespectful rules.”

Worst Negates the Bad: Dismissing an issue because it’s not as severe as a worst-case scenario. “This policy isn’t effective, but think of those who have it worse!”

Zero Tolerance: Rigidly applying strict consequences in response to minor infractions. “There will be no exceptions to those disrespectful rules.”