Logical Fallacies & The Persuasive Tactics of Bad-Faith Arguments

The intention for this site was not only to blog my thoughts on political developments relating to misinformation and dangerous conspiracy theories, but to also develop a toolkit for the reader to be able to wade through the messy media landscape of today. In this article, we will explore a series of common fallacies that are used in news media, as well as by thought-leaders, political pundits, influencers and other public figures in the age of social media.

The study of fallacies goes all the way back to Aristotle and the rhetoricians of Greek society. Aristotle became aware that sometimes arguments can be convincing and persuasive without actually using the evidence or facts of the matter. In his work, Sophistical Refutations, he began the earliest known study into identifying fallacies and their use in arguments.

The other side of the fallacy dynamic (to be explored in Part Two) is understanding the human psychological responses to information, of which the field of Heuristics lends us a great tool of understanding. These are the cognitive and mental shortcuts we use in day-to-day thinking, but which can also lead to the development of biases and erroneous thinking. Heuristics help to explain why we fall for fallacies, and understanding our use of heuristics can help us avoid the pitfalls presented by logical fallacies.  

What are Logical Fallacies? 

These are flaws in the structure or substance of an argument that do not logically counter the position of the other argument – structural flaws are termed formal fallacies while flaws in the substance of an argument are termed informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are a result of the structure of an argument; i.e., the way an argument or sentence is constructed and arranged – an easy example can be demonstrated by contrasting these two sentences:  

It is a rainy day, so the ground is wet. 

The first is logical; it observes that there is rain, and reasons that the rain is making the ground wet. 

The ground is wet, so it must have rained today. 

The second is a formal fallacy; it observes that the ground is wet and immediately draws a conclusion about rain – when the wet ground could have been caused by any number of other variables.  The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence. Incidentally, this is known as Affirming the Consequent and is one of the fallacies Aristotle identified. 

Informal Fallacies are different and can be harder to detect. Additionally, fallacies can be encountered together; meaning you can encounter multiple fallacies in an argument. Bear in mind, fallacies can be accidental but can also be deliberate – particularly in the media. Additionally, fallacies do not imply that a lack of evidence or facts; but that the evidence does not support the argument the person is trying to make. However, to an unaware audience, these flaws can pass by undetected and can lead to the argument successfully convincing the audience. 

Much of this article is dedicated to highlighting these types of fallacies. The number of informal fallacies is quite numerous, so I will focus on highlighting a number of logical fallacies which we often encounter in the media – from the news media to thought-leaders, influencers and gurus - as well as fallacies that are commonly relied on in conspiratorial discourses to establish faulty connections and build pools of evidence to faultily support particular positions. 

1. Ad Hominem – this is when the speaker, rather than making an argument or a counterargument, seeks to attack the character of the person or the community in question. These attacks can be evocative and stir up emotions in the audience that result in them dismissing the argument of the person whose character is being attacked. 

   
   

   Example, in South African politics, the use of ‘Stellenbosch Mafia’ or ‘White Monopoly Capital’ were used to dismiss certain politicians as pawns of a new shadow-Apartheid government by essentially characterizing them as racists. 

   Similarly, conservative American political pundits have routinely used claims of pedophilia, grooming, and even satanism, to dismiss their Democrat opposition by attacking their character in ways that produce strong responses from the audience. 

2. Strawman – this is when the speaker attempts to diminish the opposing argument into something weak and ridiculous and then commences to debate and argue with the weakened and ridiculous position that they have converted the original argument into. This is a common tactic amongst thought-leaders debating their way around difficult discussions rather than providing a real or effective counterargument. This can be very persuasive to the audience however, as the ridiculing of the initial position can provide a form of the argument that is easier to understand and digest – even though this form of the argument is fallacious.  

3. Ad Hoc Fallacy – This is when the speaker, without an argument or position, invents one on the spot; or introduces unexpected new information - whether fitting or not - to hurriedly defend their position and refute the criticism coming their way.  

4. Loaded Question Fallacy – A popular rhetorical device, often used in political discussions and arguments. This is when the speaker probes with a question that contains implicit assumptions already built into the question - these assumptions are typically controversial. For example, "do you think that this criminal should be convicted or should be allowed to walk free?" The sentence presupposes the guilt of the subject, i.e the 'criminal'.

   
   

   Loaded Questions are used to force the opposing party into a tricky position.

   
   

   Another example could be a party asking for the freedom of Palestinians; to which the opposition retorts; "So you think it is okay to support terrorists?"

   A loaded question builds acceptance of a particular position or answer in the question itself - in this instance, the position that Palestinians are terrorists. This forces the other party onto the backfoot and prevents them from giving a direct 'yes/no' answer.

5. Appeal to Authority/Faulty Appeal to Authority – This is when the speaker, instead of making their own argument, refers to someone in a position of authority (like a famous leader or scholar), and uses their position of authority as irrefutable evidence. 

   
   

   

   
   

   This can be done when the authority figure is popular (like in the above image), rather than an actual authority figure on the subject. This can also be done when the authority figure is against the argument the person 'borrowing' their credibility is trying to make; for example, Ben Shapiro, a conservative far-right thought leader, using Martin Luter King Jnr's arguments to support his own position.

   
   

6. Anecdotal Fallacy – This is when the speaker draws on anecdotes instead of information when making their argument. Anecdotes are stories based on personal experiences; while these may be true stories, they are not considered to be actual information or evidence of greater trends and may be specific to that person’s particular experience. An anecdotal fallacy is when this type of personal experience is used as evidence of a broader trend.  

   
   

   

   image credit: finmasters

   
   

   Common examples are influencers and thought-leaders using their experiences to give advice and to sell courses and programs. Andrew Tate, the controversial influencer and men's rights guru, routinely uses anecdotes based of his own personal experiences to develop his arguments - rather than actual evidence or facts (which he strawman's into mainstream media aka 'the Matrix' whenever confronted with facts that contradict his opinions).

   
   
   
   

7. Motte and Bailey Fallacy – This is when the speaker, instead of arguing their position which may be difficult or controversial, they present a position that has two parts: the controversial part which is where their argument stems from, and a non-controversial easily defended position that is hard to argue against. Sometimes, rather than presenting an argument with these two fronts simultaneously; the speaker cleverly refers you to a well-defended argument or position that is ‘nearby’ or adjacent to their argument.  They then choose to use this position, which is hard to argue against, as if it's their actual argument.

   
   

   The name ‘motte and bailey’ refers to the layout of old castle towns and fortifications which had a motte and bailey positioned adjacent to each other. The bailey is where the villagers reside – which is not entirely well-defended – while the motte is where the nobles reside – which is much more fortified. In this instance, the speaker’s weaker less-defensible argument represents the bailey, while the stronger well-defended position they divert to is the motte. 

   

   Credit: MotteAndBaileyMemes, Facebook

8. Quantity of Arguments Fallacy/ The ‘GishGallop’ – This is sometimes seen as an argumentative technique as opposed to simply being a logical fallacy. This is when the speaker draws on a mass quantity of arguments (regardless of how strong or weak they are) rather than developing a single argument of good quality. The GishGallop works because it forces the other party to play defense and to begin responding and refuting each of the many arguments presented rather than by presenting their own position and their own argument. Simply dismissing the arguments as weak is not sufficient as the audience - or even the speaker - may not know that these arguments are weak or why they are weak. In both instances, dismissing the arguments or dismantling them, the opponent assumes a defensive position by ignoring the claims, or spending time debunking the claims which can be perceived as fighting off criticism. Additionally, within time-sensitive cases, the gishgallop causes the opponent to waste time rather than presenting their positiion.

   
   

   

9. Us or Them Fallacy/ False Dichotomy Fallacy – This is when the speaker presents an argument of binaries; of two sides, when this is not actually the case. A false dichotomy is created by presenting a situation where only two options appear to exist - but in reality, either multiple options are available, or the situation is not as simplistic as a two-sided binary choice. 

   

   For example, media entities within South Africa have criticized President Ramaphosa by claiming that South Africa’s attempt in the International Court of Justice will result in local domestic issues being ignored. This is a false dichotomy fallacy – claiming that because the South African government is focused on Israel and Palestine, they are unable to focus on their own people. It provides a simple and easy to understand binary of 'us' and 'them'. This is entirely untrue and easily debunked as those focusing their time on the ICJ matter are international lawyers and consultants who are trained specifically for this type of thing. It does not require the President to step away from his duties in order to pursue this legal case.

   
   

   

10. The Red Herring – This fallacy is also more of a rhetorical technique that involves subtly moving the focus of an argument or discussion onto something else. Rather than producing a counterargument, the Red Herring involves providing something distracting to move the argument towards. For example, when discussing the dangers produced by our dependence on coal; a clever Red Herring could be to move the argument onto something else – like the number of jobs provided by the coal industry. While the issue of jobs and employment is real, it is not what the argument was about. 

11. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy – This fallacy involves focusing only on one piece of information while ignoring all the surrounding pieces of contradictory information. Usually, it involves only focusing on information that proves trends or similarities which become overemphasized; while ignoring information that proves differences, contradictions or dissimilarities, which end up being understated. 

    
    

    This fallacy connects with a particular bias known as Confirmation Bias; where evidence and information that agrees or ‘confirms’ one’s preexisting beliefs are focused on, while ignoring evidence that contradicts these preexisting beliefs. 

12. False Equivalence Fallacy – This is when the speaker is unable to present credible evidence to motivate for their position, so they resort to equating other pieces of evidence with evidence that supports their argument. This is false equivalence; the speaker draws on facts and evidence from outside their argument and equates it with evidence that supports their argument. Similarly, false equivalence can also be used to diminish and counter an opponent’s argument by falsely equating their position with something that diminishes their argument. 

    

13. No True Scotsman Fallacy – This fallacy actually involves a type of counterargument wherein the speaker begins by making a generalization which is countered by certain contradictory pieces of evidence. In order to refute the contradiction, the speaker then dismisses the evidence by adjusting, manipulating, or modifying the initial generalization they initially made. 

    For example; the speaker begins by saying all Muslims are terrorists, to which contradictory examples of Muslims as peaceful are given, to which the speaker then responds by modifying the initial statement by saying “No true Muslims are peaceful; all real Muslims are terrorists.”

14.  Appeal to Nature Fallacy – This is when the speaker, rather than making a persuasive or convincing argument, assumes something is either good because it occurs in nature, or something is bad because it does not occur in nature. This is usually done to counter arguments about man-made and synthetic phenomena, which is contrasted with the natural world, which is assumed to be good, better, and authentic.  

    
    

    This fallacy also connects to several others:

    
    

    The Appeal to Tradition Fallacy - Similar to the appeal to nature but instead uses tradition and the past as evidence that something is good, true or correct.

    

    The Appeal to Novelty Fallacy - A similar fallacy where something being novel or new is used as justification to support a particular position.

15. Bandwagon Fallacy – This refers to following a particular line of thinking simply because it is popular and has amassed a large following of adherents. In essence, its popularity is popular.

    
    

    

16. Fallacy of Incredulity – This refers to a person dismissing an argument simply because they cannot understand the phenomena. It does not make sense to them; therefore, it cannot be correct or factual. This is often seen in many conspiracy theories; for example, flat-earthers believing the earth is flat based on their own understandings of complex sciences like astrophysics, geophysics, fluid dynamics and more which have become the basis of popular rhetoric regarding the flat earth theory (example, "water always seeks its level".   

    
    

    

    Argument from Incredulity – FlatEarth.ws

    
    

    Connected to this fallacy, is the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, in which the speaker uses ignorance of a topic as evidence in support of a position or premise, this ignorance could be the speaker's, the other party's, or both. This rhetorical technique appeals to the opposing party's ignorance or inability to provide counter information on a topic. For example, because the opposing party does not understand the minutia of fluid dynamics and cannot provide a counter argument; therefore, the argument holds. Or, because neither party understands the intricacies of epidemiology or vaccine sciences, then the vaccine is either bad or unnecessary.

    

17.  Maturity of Chances Fallacy/The Gambler’s Fallacy – Also known as the Monte Carlo Fallacy, this refers to the fallacy that because an event occurred with less frequency than initially expected, it becomes assumed that on subsequent tries, the event has a greater chance of occurring. This fallacy applies specifically to events that are statistically independent of each other; for example, a coin toss. There is a 50/50 chance of either getting heads or tails. However, if you get tails on the first flip, and even the second flip, it does not increase the likelihood that you will now get heads on the third flip. Each flip of the coin is entirely independent and separate from the next flip.

    
    

    This fallacy is both used in rhetoric and arguments by media figures and is capable of convincing an unaware audience; but is also a type of cognitive bias used in everyday life by ordinary people in their own expectations of events.  

    
    

18. Hasty Generalization Fallacy – This refers to the drawing of conclusions based on insufficient evidence. For instance, taking a small sample that is not representative of the whole, and then generalizing across the whole. Hasty Generalizations are often used in inflammatory media that exaggerate the threat of crime, or the threat of immigrants based on isolated examples. 

    
    

    Hasty Generalizations are something we are all often guilty of, especially in emotionally charged situations. When we rush to conclusions, we are making hasty generalizations.

    
    

    Online news media popularly cites studies and research involving controversial findings which are often provocative enough to get clicks from social media users. Often though, these findings are based on preliminary research results – which are not meant to be generalized. Preliminary studies use small samples and are not meant to be generalized. Small samples produce something called Sampling Bias which distorts the results, preventing them from being generalized to a larger group. However, news media, in their hunger for new content and new stories, may misinterpret these findings (accidentally or otherwise) and generalize them across the board in order to make a catchier headline. 

    
    

19. Slippery Slope Fallacy – This fallacy refers to the belief that one event or occurrence will necessarily lead to a cascading series of events – usually events that are negative, undesirable, or even entirely disastrous and worrying. 

    
    

    

    This fallacy is popular in inflammatory political media content that aim to stir up strong emotions in the audience, example, fears of migrants and refugees, or fear of cultural change as evidenced in the climate of ongoing culture wars.  

    
    

    The Great Replacement Theory is a dangerous and extreme instance of such a fallacy; believing that the arrival of migrants from Muslim nations will lead to the erasure and replacement of the white race.  

20. False Cause Fallacy – This fallacy involves faultily attributing a cause-and-effect relationship to variables, solely because one occurs after the other occurs. This observation can be considered a correlation; but as the famous saying goes, “correlation does not imply causation” - meaning that just because two variables are correlated (occur one after the other), does not mean that one causes the other to happen. There could be an entire range of additional variables that are not being considered and require additional investigations and studies to reveal.  

    

    This fallacy is very popular amongst political pundits who are looking to blend unrelated statistics to assert their point of view. For example, criticizing the sitting President for increases in inflation or crime or other infrastructural issues that occurred under their watch. Meaning that the President’s actions and policies caused these occurrences. This is untrue and simplifies many complex realities into a simplistic form that is easily digested and understood.  

    
    

21. Galileo's Gambit Fallacy - A fallacy that has gotten popular in recent times, Galileo's Gambit refers to the famous astronomer Galileo Galiliei, who took the risk and 'gambit' of going against the scientific consensus of his times - only to be proved right.

    The fallacy involves feeling like you are correct in your position because, like Galileo, the scientific consensus goes against you. This feeling of ruffling the feather's of science is used as confirmation that you are on the right track, and upsetting the established order. Particularly in today's conspiratorial discourses where terms like 'mainstream media' and 'big pharma' have come to be used dismiss scientific counterarguments of unscientific positions and theories like flat earth or antivaxx.

    

    
    

    Final Remarks

    
    

    While the fallacies outlined here often occur in the media, it is important understand that we are also responsible for using them in our everyday lives.

    
    

    Fallacies are common and are often the result of human understanding and misunderstanding; and thus, something we are all prone to. In fact, the biases we develop that make us victim to these fallacies are often understood as cognitive developments that were necessary for human survival. For example, developing a bias against stoves after burning your hand once with a stove is a critical safety lesson that has been informed by a bias.

    
    

    In Part Two, we explore the field of Heuristics which helps us to get a more complete understanding of the mental shortcuts we use in everyday life which can lead to the development of biases and leave us vulnerable to fallacies, misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

    
    

    I would also like to thank the many great resources out there, some of which are listed in the references below. From the Daily Kos, to Thinking is Power and the committed flat earth debunking page (flatearth.ws), these are necessary and useful resources that are increasingly becoming critical in today's media saturated landscape.

    
    

References

Daily Kos. 2022. Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: False Dilemma. Daily Kos. 17 February. Retrieved 20 January 2025, from Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: False Dilemma.

Flat Earth.ws. Argument from Incredulity – FlatEarth.ws

Nikolopoulou, K. 2023. Appeal to Authority Fallacy | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. 09 October. Retrieved 20 January 2025, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-appeal-to-authority-fallacy/

Trecek-King, M. n.d. Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies. Thinking is Power. Retrieved 20 January from, Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies