1. Distractors
1.1. Ad hominem
1.1.1. Def
1.1.1.1. An attack on the person, rather than directly addressing the person's reasons
1.1.2. Form
1.1.2.1. Person 1 is claiming Y. Person 1 is a moron. Therefore, Y is not true.
1.1.3. Examples
1.1.3.1. A fan argued that Coach did not have a winning season because he was stupid.
1.1.3.2. After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird
1.2. Appeal to emotion
1.2.1. Def
1.2.1.1. The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence. Common emotions appealed to are fear, hope, patriotism, pity and sympathy
1.2.1.2. Clear: This is the general category of many fallacies that use emotion in place of reason in order to attempt to win the argument. It is a type of manipulation used in place of valid logic.
1.2.2. Form
1.2.2.1. Claim X is made without evidence. In place of evidence, emotion is used to convince the interlocutor that X is true.
1.2.3. Example
1.2.3.1. Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't fortunate enough to have any food at all.
1.3. Straw person
1.3.1. Def
1.3.1.1. Distorting the opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus what is attacked is a point of view that does not truly exist.
1.3.1.2. Clear: You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
1.3.2. Form
1.3.2.1. A makes some argument or state some position X B describe position Y as if it were position X B proceeds to argue against Y instead of X B claims that X has been refuted
1.3.3. Examples
1.3.3.1. After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
1.3.3.2. A: “We should divert more federal funding to social programs as those help people manage their expenses and contribute to the economy.” B: “That is completely ridiculous! We can’t just give money to people who don’t work, that would make them lazy and greedy.”
1.4. Glittering generality
1.4.1. Def
1.4.1.1. The use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.
1.4.2. Example
1.4.2.1. Miracle Diet Tea! Loose weight just by drinking tea! Our Miracle Diet Tea helps you to lose weight by absorbing most of the fat you eat before it is digested. Studies have shown that Miracle Diet Tea has helped millions of Americans! Thousands of doctors attest to the effectiveness of Miracle Diet Tea!
1.5. Red Herring
1.5.1. Def
1.5.1.1. An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help "win" an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue
1.5.2. Form
1.5.2.1. Topic A is presented by person 1. Person 2 introduces topic B as though it is relevant to topic A. Topic A is abandoned.
1.5.3. Examples
1.5.3.1. I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem! (Donald Trump on Twitter)
1.5.3.2. Mom: Why did you lie to me about where you were going with your boyfriend?
2. Using the conclusion as support
2.1. Begging the question
2.1.1. Def
2.1.1.1. An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning.
2.1.2. Form
2.1.2.1. Claim X assumes X is true. Therefore, claim X is true.
2.1.3. Examples
2.1.3.1. Coach says about a player on the team that "He is the most valuable player on our team because he is the best player.
2.1.3.2. The Apple iPhone is the best smartphone on the planet because no one makes a better smartphone than Apple does.
3. Erroneous/ Incorrect assumptions
3.1. Erroneous
3.1.1. Slippery Slope
3.1.1.1. Def: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events
3.1.1.1.1. Clear: loại ngụy biện cho rằng một nhận định phải sai, vì nếu nó đúng thì các sự kiện xấu khác (bad things) sẽ xảy ra sau đó. Hay nói cách khác, loại ngụy biện này thay vì bàn đến tính logic của luận điểm, lại tấn công vào luận điểm ấy chỉ dựa vào suy diễn thiếu căn cứ HẬU QUẢ xảy ra nếu chấp nhận luận điểm là đúng.
3.1.1.2. Form
3.1.1.2.1. General
3.1.1.2.2. Personal
3.1.1.3. Examples
3.1.1.3.1. Vietnamese
3.1.1.3.2. English
3.1.2. Searching for the perfect solution
3.1.2.1. Def: Falsely assuming that because part of a problem remains after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted
3.1.2.1.1. Clear: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.
3.1.2.2. Form
3.1.2.2.1. X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough.
3.1.2.3. Examples
3.1.2.3.1. Coach did not try to enforce the curfew because he knew that some players would not honor it.
3.1.2.3.2. What’s the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21? Kids still manage to get alcohol.
3.1.2.3.3. What’s the point of living? We’re all going to die anyway.
3.1.3. Narrative
3.1.3.1. Def: Assuming incorrectly that because we can tell a story that seems to explain the occurrence of a set of facts, we now understand the links relating the facts to another
3.1.3.2. Example
3.1.3.2.1. We know that some police departments are especially quick to use deadly force when the person they apprehend is an African Americans. Now we see a video that shows a speeding car being chased by a police car. As the video continues, we see the fleeing car pull to the side of the road. The officer approaches, draws his gun, and shoots the driver, who is an African American. We have seen this scenario before on television
3.1.4. Ad populum
3.1.4.1. Def: An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favored by a large group is desirable.
3.1.4.2. Form
3.1.4.2.1. A lot of people believe X. Therefore, X must be true.
3.1.4.3. Examples
3.1.4.3.1. Coach decided to use a certain strategy in games because he thought most coaches were using and favored this strategy.
3.1.4.3.2. The crowds at my Rallies are far bigger than they have ever been before, including the 2016 election. Never an empty seat in these large venues, many thousands of people watching screens outside." - Donald Trump, Oct. 12, 2018,
3.2. Incorrect
3.2.1. Appeal to questionable authority
3.2.1.1. Def: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand
3.2.1.2. Form
3.2.1.2.1. According to person 1 (who offers little or no expertise on Y being true), Y is true. Therefore, Y is true. According to person 1 (who offers little or no expertise on Y being true), Y is true. Therefore, Y is more likely to be true. A gives her view on issue B. A’s area of expertise has little or nothing to do with issue B. A’s opinion influences how people feel about issue B.
3.2.1.3. Examples:
3.2.1.3.1. My 5th-grade teacher once told me that girls would go crazy for boys if they learn how to dance. Therefore, if you want to make the ladies go crazy for you, learn to dance.
3.2.2. False Dilemma
3.2.2.1. Def: Assuming only two alternatives exist when it is possible that there are more than two
3.2.2.2. Form
3.2.2.2.1. Either X or Y is true. Either X, Y, or Z is true.
3.2.2.3. Examples
3.2.2.3.1. Coach tells his players that if they do not learn the plays that this means that they have no respect for him.
3.2.2.3.2. If you don't use our beauty products, you'll never look youthful.
3.2.2.3.3. You are for us, or you are against us.
3.2.3. The planning fallacy
3.2.3.1. Def: The tendency for people or organizations to underestimate how long they will need to complete a task, despite numerous prior experience of having underestimated how long something would take to finish
3.2.3.1.1. Clear: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.
3.2.3.2. Form
3.2.3.2.1. I wish X were true. Therefore, X is true.
3.2.3.3. Examples
3.2.3.3.1. Coach says that a curfew is not needed since his players should know how to take care of themselves physically.
3.2.3.3.2. These people all won a million dollars by playing the state lottery. Some day it might happen to you. Play to win!
3.2.4. Explaining by naming
3.2.4.1. Def: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior that you have also adequately explained the event or behavior.
3.2.4.2. Examples
3.2.4.2.1. Coach claimed that he did not remember what the athletic director had just said because he had a "senior moment."
3.2.4.2.2. A friend worries constantly that other people are talking about him. You ask a psychologist why he does so. He answer, "Because he is paranoid".