Fallacy database

Attacking the person making a claim rather than responding to their argument. The implicit idea is that if the speaker is contemptible, what they say is false — which proves nothing.

Whether someone is dishonest does not make their argument incorrect. The truth of a claim does not depend on who makes it.

Distorting or exaggerating the opponent's position to refute it more easily. Instead of attacking the real argument, a caricatured version is constructed that is simpler to knock down.

Calling for regulation is not the same as proposing total disarmament. The position is exaggerated to make it appear absurd.

Selecting only the data, examples or evidence that supports one's own position, ignoring what contradicts it. The data presented may be real, but the overall picture it gives is false.

An isolated piece of data can be true and yet misleading if not presented in its full context.

Treating someone as guilty of a crime or offence before any judicial ruling or sufficient evidence exists. It replaces the role of the judge with that of the columnist or politician.

Criminal responsibility is determined by a court after due process. Stating it without a verdict is an accusation without judicial basis.

Attributing events to a hidden network of coordinated actors without presenting evidence of that coordination. Turns coincidence or shared interest into proof of conspiracy.

Several outlets not covering something can have many explanations. Assuming government control without evidence is conspiracism.

Drawing a universal conclusion from one or a few particular cases. The fewer cases used to generalise, the more flawed the inference.

An isolated case cannot support a claim about an entire group. It would require representative statistical data.

Responding to criticism by pointing out that the critic does the same. It does not refute the original argument — it simply attempts to neutralise it through reciprocity.

Others having behaved badly does not justify one's own conduct or invalidate the criticism received.

Presenting as objective fact a claim that enormously exaggerates reality. Hyperbole is a legitimate rhetorical device, but becomes a fallacy when passed off as data.

The expression is figurative. Presenting it as a literal description of rail infrastructure would be misleading.

Presenting a situation as if only two options exist, when in reality there are more. It forces the interlocutor to choose between two extremes while ignoring intermediate alternatives.

Most political and social situations have more than two possible options. The false dilemma eliminates the space for nuance.

Using emotional impact as a substitute for rational argument. Emotions are legitimate in communication, but when they completely replace data they become manipulation.

Invoking children or victims does not substitute for an argument about the actual merits of a policy.