Spot the Fallacy,
Sharpen Your Mind

Attacking someone's character to discredit their argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Dismissing information solely because of who delivers it, regardless of its validity.

Preemptively discrediting a source before they even make their argument.

Dismissing an argument by questioning the motives behind it, rather than its merits.

Guilt or credit by association—judging someone based on who they associate with.

Undermining someone's credibility on unrelated matters to dismiss their current argument.

Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.

Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else's wrongdoing.

Changing the criteria for proof after the original criteria has been met.

Using any means to undermine credibility rather than engage with the argument.

Claiming any attack is justified because the target is a public figure or "asked for it."

Citing an authority who isn't qualified in the relevant field.

Arguing something is true because many people believe it.

Selecting only evidence that supports your position while ignoring contradicting evidence.

Using personal stories as proof instead of actual data.

Treating any opposing viewpoint as automatically suspect or in bad faith.

Arguing something is right because "it's always been done this way."

Treating two fundamentally different things as equivalent (false equivalence).

Presenting only two options when more actually exist.

Claiming one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without justification.

The conclusion is used as a premise (begging the question).

A question that contains a built-in assumption that traps the respondent.

Claiming something is true because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa).

Making someone question their own perception of reality or memory.

Using fear to persuade rather than presenting logical arguments.

Using emotional manipulation instead of logical reasoning.

Believing past random events affect future random events.

Accusing others of the very behavior you yourself exhibit.

Pressuring someone to agree because "everyone else" does.

Focusing entirely on attacking opponents rather than presenting your own positions.

Invoking identity categories to deflect criticism or shut down debate.

Focusing on damaging someone's reputation rather than addressing their arguments.

Using dramatic presentation to distract from weak arguments.

Attempting to prevent someone from speaking rather than rebutting their points.

Expressing moral positions primarily for social approval rather than genuine belief.

Overwhelming opponents with numerous arguments (valid or not) that they can't possibly address all in time.

Persistently asking questions under the guise of "just wanting to understand," designed to exhaust.

Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender - a manipulation pattern where the accused becomes the "victim."

Dismissing an argument based on how it's delivered rather than its content.

Rejecting a solution because it's not perfect, ignoring that it's better than nothing.

Using a catchy phrase to shut down critical thinking and end discussion.

"After this, therefore because of this" - assuming one event caused another just because it happened first.

Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, like painting a target around bullet holes.

Assuming a complex outcome has only one cause when multiple factors are involved.

Arguing something is good because it's "natural" or bad because it's "unnatural."

Assuming something is better simply because it's newer or more modern.

Continuing a course of action because of past investment, even when it no longer makes sense.