Ad Hominem Fallacy
An ad hominem fallacy attacks a person's character instead of addressing their argument.
Deep dives into logic, cognitive biases, and the art of debate.
An ad hominem fallacy attacks a person's character instead of addressing their argument.
The ambiguity fallacy relies on vague or shifting meanings to make an argument appear valid.
The anecdotal fallacy treats a personal story as proof instead of using reliable evidence.
An appeal to authority claims something is true because an authority figure says it, without adequate evidence.
The appeal to emotion fallacy uses feelings as the primary evidence instead of reasons or facts.
An appeal to fear tries to persuade by frightening people rather than presenting evidence.
An appeal to ignorance claims something is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).
The appeal to nature fallacy assumes something is good or right simply because it is natural.
The appeal to tradition fallacy argues something is right because it has always been done that way.
The bandwagon fallacy treats popularity as proof that a belief or decision is correct.
The burden of proof fallacy shifts the responsibility to disprove a claim instead of proving it.
Circular reasoning uses the conclusion as one of its premises, providing no independent support.
The composition fallacy assumes what is true of parts must be true of the whole.
Correlation versus causation fallacy assumes that because two things move together, one causes the other.
The division fallacy assumes what is true of the whole must be true of each part.
Equivocation shifts the meaning of a key word or phrase to make an argument seem valid.
A false analogy compares two things that are not similar in the ways that matter.
The false cause fallacy assumes a causal relationship without adequate evidence.
A false dilemma presents only two options when more possibilities exist.
The gambler's fallacy assumes past random events make a future outcome more likely.
The genetic fallacy judges a claim based on its source rather than its evidence.
A hasty generalization draws a broad conclusion from too little or unrepresentative evidence.
Logical fallacies are common reasoning errors that make arguments feel persuasive without real support. Learn what they are and how to spot them.
A complete logical fallacies list with clear definitions and links to detailed guides.
The middle ground fallacy assumes a compromise is always correct simply because it is between two extremes.
Moving the goalposts changes the criteria for success after those criteria have been met.
The no true Scotsman fallacy redefines a group to exclude counterexamples and protect a claim.
Post hoc fallacy assumes that because one event followed another, the first caused the second.
A red herring distracts from the original issue by introducing an irrelevant topic.
A slippery slope claims a small step will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes without evidence.
A straw man fallacy distorts someone's position to make it easier to attack.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy cherry-picks data that fits a pattern while ignoring the rest.
Tu quoque dismisses a claim by accusing the speaker of hypocrisy instead of addressing the argument.

Milano Cortina 2026 drew global attention—dual flames, huge crowds, nonstop commentary. Here’s what it reveals about narratives, fallacies, and clear thinking.

From office meetings to family chats and grocery store debates, real-life arguments are full of predictable fallacies. Learn the patterns, examples, and calm responses.

Political leaders often rely on predictable fallacies—straw man, false dilemmas, whataboutism, and fear appeals—to persuade quickly. Learn the patterns and defenses.