.png)
The Most Common Logical Fallacies Used in Online Arguments (And How to Avoid Them)
It’s election season again, and that means that social media (and even old-fashioned face to face conversations) are frequently devolving into ridiculous arguments full of flawed reasoning and logical fallacies. The quantity of arguments has never been higher while the quality is astonishingly low, so it feels like a good time to review some of the bad-faith arguing tactics, how to recognize them and potentially even counter them.
Understanding and identifying logical fallacies is crucial for engaging in clearer, more rational conversations, and can even facilitate the always-rare compromise.
1. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
What it is: The ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. This is a common tactic in online discussions, especially when debates become heated. Instead of engaging with the actual points being made, the focus shifts to discrediting the opponent personally.
Example: "Why should we listen to your opinion on gun control? You didn’t even graduate from college!"
Why it’s a fallacy: The person’s background or character does not automatically invalidate their argument. Even if the person making the argument has flaws, their argument could still be valid. By attacking the person instead of their ideas, the argument loses focus and becomes about personalities rather than issues.
How to avoid it: Always focus on the argument itself. If you disagree with someone's point, counter their ideas with logic and evidence, rather than resorting to personal attacks. If you’re confident in your viewpoint then it shouldn’t be a problem to back it up rationally, and if you can’t then you shouldn’t be arguing in the first place.
2. Straw Man Argument
What it is: A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or oversimplifies their opponent’s argument, making it easier to attack. The new version of the argument (the “straw man”) is weaker than the original and can be easily dismissed, but it misrepresents the actual point the opponent was making.
Example: Person A: "We should have some regulations on businesses to prevent pollution."Person B: "So you think we should just shut down all businesses and ruin the economy?"
Why it’s a fallacy: By misrepresenting the original argument, the person avoids dealing with the actual substance of the discussion. The new, distorted version is often exaggerated or framed in a way that makes it easy to defeat, but it is not a fair reflection of the opponent’s position.
How to avoid it: Restate your opponent's position accurately before critiquing it. Paraphrase their argument in a way that they would agree with and then present your counter-argument. This ensures that you are arguing against their actual position, not a distorted version. When your opponent does this to you be firm in your real position and call out the tactic immediately.
3. Slippery Slope
What it is: The slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone argues that a particular action or decision will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences without providing sufficient evidence to support that claim. It suggests that taking one step in a certain direction will set off an unstoppable chain reaction of bad outcomes.
Example:"If we allow same-sex marriage, then soon people will want to marry animals or objects!"
Why it’s a fallacy: A slippery slope argument assumes that one action will automatically lead to extreme consequences, without providing any real proof that these outcomes are likely. In reality, many steps (legal, cultural, or otherwise) exist between the initial action and the exaggerated consequence.
How to avoid it: Stick to the immediate consequences of a decision or action and avoid jumping to extreme hypotheticals unless there’s strong evidence to suggest such outcomes. Consider each step on its own merits rather than assuming a domino effect.
4. Appeal to Authority
What it is: An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because an authority figure or expert said so, rather than based on evidence. While experts can provide valuable insights, simply citing an authority does not replace the need for a reasoned argument.
Example: "Professor X says climate change isn’t real, so that is true."
Why it’s a fallacy: Just because an authority figure holds a certain opinion does not necessarily make that opinion correct. Even experts can be wrong or biased, and their statements should be supported by evidence. Blindly following authority without scrutinizing the evidence is poor reasoning, and people are prone to cherry-picking the authority to suit their preferred conclusion.
How to avoid it: Site evidence, not authority figures. When referencing experts, make sure to explain the evidence they present rather than relying solely on who they are.
5. False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy)
What it is: A false dilemma presents two options as the only possible choices when, in fact, other alternatives exist. This fallacy forces a simplistic "either/or" thinking, limiting the complexity of a situation and pushing people to choose between extremes.
Example: "Either you support the government, or you hate your country."
Why it’s a fallacy: The false dilemma ignores the possibility of more nuanced positions. Most issues, especially complex ones, don’t boil down to just two options. By presenting only two choices, the argument manipulates the audience into making an oversimplified decision.
How to avoid it: Acknowledge that most issues have multiple perspectives and possible solutions. When arguing your position, avoid framing choices as binary and recognize the middle ground or additional options.
6. Hasty Generalization
What it is: This fallacy occurs when someone makes a broad generalization based on limited or insufficient evidence. It often leads to stereotypes or sweeping statements that don't accurately reflect reality.
Example: "I met a rude person from New York once, so all New Yorkers must be rude."
Why it’s a fallacy: A hasty generalization jumps to conclusions based on a small sample size. Just because something is true in one or a few cases does not mean it’s true across the board. Such generalizations are misleading and overlook the complexity of individual experiences.
How to avoid it: Avoid making any sweeping statements. Absolutes are usually just hyperbole and if you need to resort to hasty generalizations then you are inevitably going to be wrong.
7. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
What it is: Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise without any independent support. Essentially, the argument goes in a circle, assuming what it’s trying to prove.
Example: "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it’s the word of God."
Why it’s a fallacy: Circular reasoning offers no real evidence for its conclusion, as it assumes the truth of the conclusion from the start. This creates an argument that doesn’t prove anything outside of its own logic.
How to avoid it: Ensure that the premises of your argument are independently verifiable and don’t rely on the conclusion itself to be true. Use evidence from outside the argument to support your claim.
8. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
What it is: This fallacy assumes that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second. It’s a confusion of correlation with causation, where two unrelated events are assumed to be linked.
Example: "Joe Biden is the President and inflation has been high. Joe Biden caused inflation."
Why it’s a fallacy: Just because two events occur in sequence doesn’t mean one caused the other. Many other factors could be responsible for the second event, and assuming a direct cause without evidence is faulty reasoning.
How to avoid it: Look for solid evidence of causation before assuming that one thing caused another. Correlation doesn’t always imply causation, so it’s important to explore other possible explanations.
Conclusion
Logical fallacies will quickly derail productive conversations. By recognizing them and steering clear of them in your own arguments, you’ll engage in more meaningful discussions and might even achieve compromise. Critical thinking is key to avoiding faulty reasoning and ensuring that your arguments stand on solid ground.
Having said all that, I have one piece of advice to offer: don’t argue about politics! Just don't. Most people have already made up their minds and are only looking to reinforce their beliefs, not challenge or change them. You’re going to stress yourself out, waste your precious time and come away with a negative opinion of the opposing side. Think back to the last time you read an online political disagreement and someone said “You know what? You’re right. Your well-reasoned and thoughtful response has inspired me to change my political views.” It never happens. It won't happen. But understanding the bad arguments can help you avoid them and inform your own better arguments.
JP
If there is one book that changed the way I form a coherent argument, it's They Say/I Say by Gerald Graff and Cindy Birkenstein. I was assigned this as an English 100 textbook on my very first day of university and it guided my academic success more than any other book. It explains the most effective way to structure an argument by summarizing the opposing view, explaining why that view is incorrect, and then laying out your own viewpoint in opposition. It's simple, it works, and I found an online copy for free to share with you here!
Seems logical to me. We live in a world today where it seems like you must pick a side even if that decision is completely biased. Throw away reasoning just to say your left or right. I personally still like sitting neutral and honestly, there is rarely a great candidate anyway. Great information here, definitely got me thinking.