This is when someone claims that since A has certain qualities, and B is in some way associated with A, then B has those qualities as well, without actual proof of this.Įxample: "Many Naruto ninjas use genjutsu. Therefore it's not a real refutation of the argument. This argument's claim (Ichigo didn't really defeat Byakuya, it was more like a tie) is true, but that is irrelevant to the point of the opponent's argument (to show Ichigo's speed). This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by bringing up a completely unrelated point, a "Red herring", to lure his opponent away from the real point of the argument.Įxample: "Even though Ichigo deflected over a million of Byakuya's Senbonzakura petals using his Bankai speed, he still couldn't really beat Byakuya." The person in this example starts with a true premise (Goku leaves afterimages), but then jumps to a conclusion which is in no way implied by that premise (Goku is FTL). This is when someone's conclusion is not implied at all by the premise.Įxample: "Goku leaves afterimages, therefore Goku is faster than light". The premise here (One Piece characters are faster than Naruto characters) is simply stated as if you should be expected to just accept it, and the conclusion is only true if the premise is true. This is when someone's conclusion is buried in their premise.Įxample: "Luffy is faster than Gai because One Piece characters are faster than Naruto characters". The person in this example is ignoring any actual evidence and facts and just basing his reasoning on what the majority of people said.
This is when someone claims that if more people think one thing than another thing, then the one supported by the majority is correct.Įxample: "The poll in this thread has more votes for character A than character B, so character A wins". Goku) and is only attempting to invalidate his opponent's argument based on a possible motive. In this case, the person is not actually debating the point (Superman vs. This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by speculating on what ulterior motives the person making the argument might have, instead of addressing the argument itself.Įxample: "You only think Superman could beat Goku because you hate DBZ!" In reality, the person who made that claim would be the one required to prove it. In this case, the person in the example makes a claim (Goku is FTL), and without providing evidence for it himself, he asks his opponent to prove him wrong. "Goku is faster than light speed because you can't prove he's not!" The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and the person who makes the claim. This is when someone attempts to make someone else prove a claim when the burden of proof is really on them to prove it. NOTE: This is a very simple example, usually straw men are much harder to spot than this. Person A never said Luffy was light speed, person B is making that up to make Person A's argument look bad. Person B: Luffy isn't light speed! You're wrong. Person A: Luffy is so fast due to Gear 2, he would easily blitz Naruto. This is when one person corrupts an opponent's argument into something different, a "straw man" that they set up just to knock it down. Saying "Your arguments are wrong because you're stupid" is an ad hominem, but simply saying "You're stupid" is not a fallacy. NOTE: There is a difference between an ad hominem and a plain insult. It is when you rebut an opponent's argument by insulting them instead of their argument. This means "argument against the man, not the point". These are the examples that apply to this wiki, with the original list written by Endless Mike:
It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly.
One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. Argumentum ad nauseum, or argument from repetition.