Fallacy

A Flawed or defective argument that may still be persuasive and even convincing.

whereby the claimant shifts the focus away from the supporting reasons to the potential negative consequences fro the claimant. Some appeals the emotion (including pit) can be legitimate, but many are not; context is the crucial factor

A formally invalid pattern of reasoning that takes this form
If A, Then B
B (Affirming the consequent)
Therefore, A

A formally invalid pattern that takes this form
If A, Then B
Not A (denying the antecedent)
Therefore, not B

A form of reasoning that is fallacious if the claimant strays outside his or her area(s) of expertise; it is perfectly acceptable if the claimant actually is an authority in the area in question.

whereby, even if everyone believes X to be true, this in no way guarantee that X is true or that it is reasonable to believe that X is true

whereby claimants are personally attacked, rather than having supporting reasons for their claim called into question.

hereby person A, who has been accused of being guilty of X by person B, responds by claiming that person B is even worse with respect to X than A is. Perosn A completely ignores whether he or she is actually guilty of X

whereby emotionally charged language (either positive or negative) is used in an attempt to influence how someone perceives a claim

whereby no knowing whether X is true does not count as evidence in favor of either X or ~X. It merely encourages us to withhold or suspend judgement until and unless more evidence is forthcoming.

whereby someone threatens force (physical, economic, Political) if the other person does not agree with his or her view on a particular matter. Such an approach completely ignores the reasons offered in support of the claim in question.

The Claim that event A, seemingly inevitable, leads to event B and ultimately to event F, which is a particularly bad or undesirable state of affairs. This mode of arguing is fallacious if there is no close causal connection between event A and the subsequent events.

A fAllacy of poor reasoning whereby the premise(s) of an argument merely states (or assumes) the conclusion that the claimant is trying to establish. whenever we can state the premise(s) and the conculsionwith the same words, there is good reason to think this fallacy has been committed.

Whereby words or phrase in an argument are used in two or more senses, thus making an argument invalid.

A Fallacy of poor reasoning whereby the fact that event C always follows event B does not necessarily mean B is the Cause of C. The two events may be accidentally related, or they may both be the effect (result) of another event A.

A Fallacy of Poor reasoning whereby a broad or general conclusion is based on the relatively small and/or limited sample or on what might well be stereotypes, whims, or prejudices.

A Fallacy whereby statistics are used in a deceptive or misleading fashion. Among other things the statisics cited may ba out of context, distorted, or based on a limited sample; or they may be based on faulty questions or sampling techniques.

A fallacy of Misrepresentation whereby an opponent's argument is (often intentionally) distorted or caricatures and so made to look weaker than it actually is. The degree of distortion or exaggeration may range from slight to severe.

A Fallacy whereby claims that have the aooearance if sanity are in fact essentially untestable.