Logical Fallacies

assuming that a compromise or middle point between two extremes must be the truth

using a double meaning or ambiguous language to mislead or misrepresent the truth

arguing that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, or good

presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, the claim itself must be wrong

assuming that what is true for the whole must also be true for all of its parts

a circular argument where the conclusion is included in the premise

dismissing criticism by pointing out the opponent did the same thing

protecting a generalization by excluding counterexamples as 'not pure'

believing that past random events influence the probability of future ones

assuming what is true for a part must be true for the whole

judging an argument based on where it came from rather than its content

arguing that something is true or right because it is popular

introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue

manipulating feelings to win an argument instead of using logic

claiming the opponent must disprove a claim rather than proving it yourself

using a personal story or isolated example instead of valid evidence

misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack

using the conclusion as a premise to prove itself

claiming something is true just because an expert said it

making a broad claim based on a small or biased sample

assuming that because B followed A, A must have caused B

claiming one step will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes

pretending there are only two options when more exist

attacking the person instead of the argument