If you know me at all, you’re probably aware that I like to argue debate with people. The topic could be anything, I just think it’s fun. In a pandemic-wracked world, social interaction is a rare commodity, so I got my fix from the Mecca of intelligent discourse: Facebook. With the four-year disaster that was the 45th POTUS’s term igniting my unexpected passion for politics, a perfect storm was brewing. I realized I had the opportunity to have an impact, to expose people to ideas they never would have heard in their echo chambers. People told me I was just wasting my time. To them I say… yeah they’re mostly right. But when I do get someone to reevaluate their beliefs, it makes the frustration worth it. And, it’s damn fun.

I now have an extensive collection of arguments that I can use as reference material to help others strengthen their arguments. Today’s topic: logical fallacies.

A logical fallacy is the use of poor or faulty reasoning in an argument. Whether intentional or not, fallacies are used to make an argument seem stronger than it actually is. Being able to identify a fallacious argument will bolster your debate skills, as well as make you more aware of bad faith arguments in media, advertising, and propaganda.

In this post, you’ll learn about some common fallacies and get to see some examples of them being used in the real world. Well, you’ll see them used in Facebook comments, which is pretty close. For ease, I’ve transcribed the comment threads into text, including every misspelling and grammatical error, both mine and theirs. Yes, it was painful. Thanks for asking.

Ad Populum

Ad populum (“to the people” in Latin) is the “appeal to popularity” fallacy. It concludes that if many people believe in or agree with a claim, then it must be true. This line of thinking is fallacious because if a lot of people believe something that is objectively wrong, that just means a lot of people are wrong.

This is a comment under a post claiming the 2020 presidential election was stolen:

Kyle Plourde: Still waiting for that proof of voter fraud
Facebook Commenter: typical liberal TOTALLY believing in the liberal media scam “there’s nothing here to see”!!! I’m sure you think those HUNDREDS of sworn affidavits to voter fraud were just disgruntled Trump supporters lying under oath! Guess what Puppet Boy, lying under oath is a liberal way of life! So, you think Conservatives do the same because that’s all you know! Wake up Puppet Boy! Your liberal Puppet Master lies to you 24/7. They use the Nazi style Ministry of Propaganda (the Lame Stream Media) to perpetuate their lies and for their sheep they think that is “truth” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If you didn’t follow this stuff closely, the “sworn affidavits” he’s talking about were pretty much all thrown out of their court cases because they didn’t contain anything even resembling relevant evidence, mostly just opinions stated as fact. That’s what makes this ad populum. Oh, and “Puppet Boy” is a pretty good ad hominem, so I’ll give him props for that.

Appeal to Ignorance

The appeal to ignorance, or “argument from ignorance,” makes the claim that because something has not been proven false, it is true. There are a lot of reasons why something can’t be definitively proven false, which this fallacy doesn’t take into account. These were particularly pernicious in November of 2020. And December. And January of 2021. And February. And March. And April. And May. And June. And probably in July, too…

Commented under an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quote:

Facebook Commenter: she probably didnt win legitamately anyway
Kyle Plourde: do you have proof?
FC: do you have proof she won legitamately?
KP: yes. The election is proof that she was elected legitimately
FC: not really. elections can be rigged

In most cases, it’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. Proof requires evidence, which nonexistent things notoriously don’t leave behind. In this example, the commenter is trying to argue that voter fraud occurred with his only evidence being that I couldn’t prove that fraudulent ballots didn’t exist. He goes on to argue that there must be fraud because there is a slim chance that fraud is possible. This isn’t necessarily an appeal to ignorance, but a false application of Murphy’s Law.

Circular Argument

A circular argument is one where the argument itself relies on the conclusion being true. Also called “assuming the conclusion,” it’s easy to identify because the argument often just repeats the conclusion.

Response to a comment about Rudy Giuliani’s failed voter fraud cases:

Facebook Commenter: I watched and read [an election fraud hearing]! It was very poorly presented by the attorneys! Giuliani is an alcoholic legend in his own mind! The Ministry of Propaganda (Democratic state run Lame Stream Media) said from the start “there’s nothing to see here”! They’ve been on a 4+ year psychological campaign to discredit Trump! The Capital “insurrection” is just another cog in the liberal disinformation propaganda media blitz! Piglosi and her other Rat pack clowns started drafting the last articles of impeachment BEFORE the Capital incursion even happened! YOUR liberal media sources would report THAT truth!

The circular claim here is that the “Lamestream Media,” or mainstream media for those of you that aren’t fluent in Trumplish, is pushing out propaganda because they’re a propaganda machine for the state. There are more obvious examples of circular arguments, but the rant was too good to not include. I love a good rant.

False Dilemma

Sometimes called the “either or” fallacy, a false dilemma gives two outcomes or sides when in reality there are many, falsely presenting the topic as binary. When one uses it, the other option is usually the worst possible thing they can think of.

Commented under a post by Bernie Sanders, in which he criticized Israel for killing many civilians in Gaza:

Facebook Commenter: Too, bad Bernie won’t recognize that Jewish lives matter (and neither will the New York Times nor much of the Democratic Party)!!

This commenter makes the claim that by defending the lives of Palestinians, Bernie doesn’t care about Jews (I believe he meant Israelis).

Genetic

With a genetic fallacy, a conclusion is drawn based solely on where the argument is coming from. I find this paired with ad hominem a lot, which boils the argument down to “Because you’re saying this, I know it’s wrong.”

Here’s a reply to a comment I made explaining the differences between the Black Lives Matter movement and the organization “Black Lives Matter”:

Facebook Commenter: They are completely related. Your comments are merely semantic.
Kyle Plourde: Actually, there is a difference: [link to an article from the Foundation for Economic Education explaining the distinction]
FC: lmfao…. did you actually try to use CNN to support your position? Amateurish at best.
KP: if you actually read the article (or even look at the webpage), you’ll see that the article is from the Foundation for Economic Education. The [image at the top of the article] is from an interview with Terry Cruise on CNN that gave the author motivation to write the article.
FC: all I have to do is see CNN and that’s enough for me to not waste my time.

This commenter completely disregarded information because he thought it came from CNN, even though it didn’t. He merely glimpsed the Mark (or Logo) of the Beast and was forced to shield his eyes lest he be corrupted by its influence. If the article was actually from CNN, it’d still be a genetic fallacy, he’d just look less stupid. And while CNN isn’t exactly the pinnacle of good journalism, you can’t immediately throw them out. A broken clock is right twice a day after all.

Hasty Generalization

This is a broad conclusion that is based on a small amount of “proof.” The “proof” provided is usually very specific and only partially related to the general argument.

A comment under a post about mask mandates:

Facebook Commenter: I didn’t wear a mask, and worked 6 days a week, because I don’t live in fear. I hope that trend continues, (except, maybe work 5 days instead of 6).

Our commenter hastily draws the conclusion that masks don’t work based only on his own, limited experience. And, of course, he doesn’t understand what masks do or how they work. Based on my later conversation with him, he wasn’t too keen to learn, either.

Moral Equivalence

A moral equivalence equates one of the sides in the argument with a different, unrelated thing from a moral standpoint. This boils the argument down to “A is basically the same as B, and B is really bad. That means A is bad, too,” regardless of how different A and B might be.

This is a reply to a comment I made about something completely unrelated. I think it was the sexual assault allegations against Matt Gaetz, but it’s really not important for this:

Facebook Commenter: HYPOCRITES,Like you nazicrats screamingTrump.supporters are racist,Yet y’all support this racist Bigot, [link to YouTube video about racist things Biden has done/said]
Kyle Plourde: first of all, that’s classic whataboutism. I’d type the definition out for you, but I highly doubt that you have the mental processing power to understand it. Second, I’m not a Democrat. Third, I’m Jewish. Don’t you fucking dare call me a Nazi. It’s clear you don’t understand a single fucking thing you’re trying to talk about, so sit down, shut up and let the grown-ups talk

Now I’ll admit, I lost my cool here. I used some ad hominem attacks, which made my rebuttal weak from a debate standpoint. I’m not exactly proud of my response, but it felt damn good, so I don’t regret it either. The actual moral equivalence here is equating Democrats to Nazis, which, y’know, aren’t the same.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

This wordy Latin phrase translates to “after this, therefore because of this.” It basically means that because event B happened after event A, A caused B. Or if you want to be fancy, it’s causation based on temporal sequence.

A Newsmax post and some individual comments:

Newsmax: Virus spikes in Texas, Florida and Arizona – raising concerns for quick reopening
Facebook Commenter 1: We all knew it would spike some as everyone gets out again, no surprise here. It will go back down , it’s called herd immunity. This is the only way to get this virus gone. If you’re worried take precautions and if your compromised health wise, wait a few more weeks for this herd immunity to be done, then take precautions and get out. The fresh air and sun will do wonders. It has been proven to be more harmful to be quarantined for long periods of time. Do your research, act responsibly and live your life
Facebook Commenter 2: Probably just more testing. But if true we are getting closer to herd immunity all over! And that is good news for everyone but Gates and others wasting money to make a vaccine. If we stop the virus with herd immunity we won’t need their vaccine.
Facebook Commenter 3: We’re doing more testing, of course the numbers are going to rise. The numbers to monitor are deaths and hospitalizations, the rest is just scare tactics.
Facebook Commenter 4: Because more testing is being DONE!

The argument being made by these commenters is that cases of COVID-19 are rising because the US increased testing. This is obviously false for two reasons. First, more testing reveals more cases, it doesn’t create them. Second is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: COVID testing increased and was followed by more COVID cases, therefore COVID cases aren’t actually increasing, they’re just being revealed by the test. This implies that COVID isn’t as insanely infectious as it actually is. Oh by the way, the article and comments are from June 17, 2020.

Red Herring

The red herring comes in many flavors, but in its simplest, unseasoned form, it’s an argument or statement that is intended to distract from the main argument. This is used to shift the debate to a different topic that might be easier to win.

Under a post about the one year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder by former police officer Derek Chauvin:

Facebook Commenter: He’s done selling dope, and holding guns to pregnant women’s heads. #thuglifeover
Kyle Plourde: cops aren’t supposed to kill suspects either
FC: take you another vaccine and go protest some more 🤣
KP: So you’re not denying what I said?

The red herring here is pretty smelly. Oh and he never denied what I said.

Slippery Slope

A slippery slope argument says that if one, small thing occurs, it will cause a chain of events that will make a big thing happen. This is a favored tactic of a certain “news” personality whose name rhymes with Fucker Farlson.

Post by Ted Cruz and a comment:

Ted Cruz: In today’s Democrat Party there is a hierarchy of victims and some victims trump other victims.The Equality Act reflects the radical Democrats’ war on women.
Facebook Commenter: This bill is disastrous for children too! Taking away gender so all can be equal is ludicrous!

For a little context, the Equality Act of 2021, or H.R. 5, prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The commenter here is arguing that if we validate LGBTQ+ people, we are on the slippery slope of getting rid of gender altogether. Thinly veiled transphobia is still transphobia, folks.

Strawman

In a strawman argument, the debater will prop up a simpler, more narrow version of the opposing point and argue against that instead of the actual point. It’s particularly effective in situations where the other side can’t easily respond, like on Fucker Farlson’s show.

This is a response to a comment I made defining fascism and using that definition to determine whether or not Trump is a fascist (he definitely is):

Facebook Commenter: do you know what a fascist is do you even know the definition not your new 2008 made up definition. There is a fascist here it’s you, and your cohorts of anti-Americans. Your political ideologies, your desire to silence those who speak differently than you, those who have different ideas than you, those who believe in law and order, those who believe in America first, those who believe in a higher power, those who support small government and are capable of making decisions for themselves,You are a big government, big regulation, big tax loving little oppresser. You’re a little antifa feminist twerp probably sporting skinny jeans and writing poems about your horrible whiteness and how much you despise your country. You are everything you claim others are, and you support everything you claim you hate.An hate filled pronoun attention-seeking social invert willing to jump on whatever narrative gets you attention, whatever narrative makes you feel special. You are an enemy of the Constitution, an anti-American common loving misfit

I got this comment while I was looking for an example for this section. Literally 5 minutes ago as I write this. This is obviously a great rant, with some excellent ad hominem attacks, but there’s also a solid paragraph of strawman in there. This commenter describes the cartoon image of me in her head, and then proceeds to argue against that person. What I love about this example in particular is that I didn’t mention anything she talks about other than fascism. This is all a figment of her imagination.

Tu Quoque

Tu quoque (“you also” in Latin) is also known as the “appeal to hypocrisy” fallacy. Its purpose is to discredit the opponent by pointing out inconsistencies between their behavior and their argument. The problem is that pointing out hypocrisy does not actually weaken the argument itself. A person can be both correct and a hypocrite. The most common form of tu quoque is “whataboutism,” in which one person is charged with an offense and attempts to counter it by charging the accuser with a similar offense. The specific fault of whataboutism is that the initial charge is never actually disputed. This variant is also used as a red herring.

This fallacy is particularly easy to fall into, and the one I catch myself on most often. This is because while it can discredit your opponent, it doesn’t actually do anything to weaken your opponent’s argument. In addition to my examples, watch any presidential debate with this in mind.

Comment thread under a Ted Cruz post

Kyle Plourde: When will you [Ted Cruz] comment on the allegations and investigation against Matt Gaetz?
Facebook Commenter: when your democrats comment on investigation of Hunter Bidden & his daddy “the big guy” ! When do you think that might be ?
KP: Whataboutism: a form of the “to quoque” logical fallacy; the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue
FC: Yes! that’s exactly what the libtards do !! You are exactly right ! They only want to talk about what they think the Republicans have done wrong. But sweep everything the libtards do under the rug with fake news. Now matter how corrupt it is, i.e Hunter Biden & the “big guy” daddy Joe. Why do they not want to talk about that ?🤷
KP: ok so you’ve doubled down on your whataboutism logical fallacy and thrown in some classic tu quoque. A logical fallacy, just so you know, weakens an argument.But basically, your entire comment boils down to “I know you are but what am I?” Which, as far as I know, isn’t a logical fallacy so much as a childish response of no substance. I’m not particularly interested in arguing with children
FC: Proverbs 29:11 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowlage: but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 18:2 a FOOL hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
KP: You misspelled *knowledge

That one was a little longer than it needed to be. The tu quoque is in the beginning, which I pointed out. I just wanted to include the misspelled Bible verses. Another pro-tip, if you have to quote random Bible verses in a political argument, you’ve already lost.

Ad Hominem

And finally, the one we’ve all been waiting for, your favorite and mine: ad hominem. The ad hominem attack is one made against the person you’re arguing with, not the argument itself. This is the last hope of those with nothing to say, no real argument to make. Because this one is so common and so much fun, I’ll leave you with a collection of some of the best insults hurled at me.

Thanks for reading, I hope you found it helpful and entertaining.

—-POOR BOO BOO—-GO BACK TO UR BASEMENT

Kyle Plourde: it’s really unfortunate that believing in science is a sign of cowardice these days. At least among a certain crowd in the US
Facebook Commenter: lol. That your word, not mine. For me its more the “I live in my mom’s basement but I’m going to tell others how to live, look.”
KP: It’s always the mom’s basement thing with y’all. At least try to be creative with your insults, it’s more fun that way
FC: ok mamas boy. Lol, if the key fits the basement door………… look in the mirror, I guarantee you live with mommy. Sorry not sorry the truth hurts.
KP: I have to say, you’ve disappointed me. At least put a little effort into the personal attacks. But, I guess if you’re going for ad hominem, you clearly don’t have the ability to put together even a shitty argument, so I shouldn’t expect anything from you
FC: why bother? I never actually attacked you either. I assumed youd have some nerve, but now realize thats not possible. You have nothing to offer, so no, you definitely should not expect anything from me. Hows that useless Theatre degree? Or is that what you use when you have to beg Mommy for another year in her basement? You have no idea what it’s like to actually have to provide for yourself or others. So, yea, your opinion is useless, like your degreeKyle……..let’s put this to rest. Do you, or do you not live at home?? Just answer the question, if not, we can continue. If so, were done and you have nothing! As far as me disappointing you, that’s nowhere near as important as how disappointed your Father must be in you.
KP: aaaaand there’s the lash out. Wear a mask, get the vaccine, we all wanna go back to normal life. Oh and maybe look up logical fallacies, that should help shore up your abysmal arguing skills. And while you’re on a reading kick, you should also check out the opinions of literally any reputable doctor/scientist about covid prevention. Or, you could look at all the evidence for election integrity and then compare that to the evidence that the election was stolen (spoiler: there is none). At least my “useless theatre degree” prepared me for basic critical thinking.
FC: lol. And hereeeeeessssss the avoidal. You still live at home. Bye bye little boy. I will not wear a face diaper, i will not inject poison. I’m using my white privilege to pass on the poison. Tell Mom and Dad i said hi. Give me a shout when you actually have life experience. And no, playing Pokemon Go does not count.

Studied theater,eh??? Learnt how to be one of the clowns that jumps out of the little cars, I’d bet……🤓

Facebook Commenter 1: [bad meme about how stupid AOC is]
Kyle Plourde: solid argument. I can tell you spent a lot of time gathering the facts together to draft a scathing response like that
FC1: no I spend a lot of time working and paying taxes….now probably I will have to pay your college debt, major in Siberian folk dance is not very helpful….go in take your meds and go play in mama’s basement….
KP: when you get a chance look up the “ad hominem” logical fallacy. I think you could learn a thing or two
Facebook Commenter 2: it sounds like Kyle has a little crush on the AOC. Thats cute.
FC1: love ❤ is beautiful….
FC2: He thinks she cares about him. Lol
FC1: now he is sad …..he will put his Antifa warrior outfit and take a selfie 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

hey dumbass go pound your pud in your momma’s basement you pedofile. You know nothing about raising children. You have none of your own so go take a progressive shit you dumb fucks are trying to push on kids and stick it up your snowflake ass

Kyle is a Biden loving theater major from Seattle. = completely useless bag of meat.

*note, my Facebook banner at the time said “Settle for Biden”

na…dont think so brah….Beijing China sleepy creepy sniffy big guy…

your an ediot, you just stick with Biden your not going anywhere anyway. Dumb ass kid.

by the looks of ypu, you look like a little Sally so stick to ballet dancing kid.

Dead n***ers are a happy ending, some pussy like you just got me thrown off facebook for disagreement about the rainbow 🤣never mind saying what I would really like to

I would but why waste any time on indoctrinated fools like You. YOU would just ‘think’ it was ALL THEATRE ! You commies always eat the turd that falls out of your mouths !

your a little defund the police muppet crawl back under your rock you little cretin.

I’m far from upset, you make me laugh cause you a stupid ass lil kid who don’t know shyte!!!
Take your ass on lil fuck boy ass on some where keep letting someone control your pathetic life
You’re just some stupid punk ass bitch truth hurt ya pansy snowflake feelings FOG BITCH BOY
FOH BITCH BOY
awe what’s wrong pansy I can do this all bitch boy!!! When ya getting ya beat don’t call the POPO to come save ya pussy ass