Self-Improvement
How To Keep The Upper Hand
10 Logical Fallacies To Avoid In Arguments
A heated argument. Tension fills the air as two men in suits are yelling at each other, one louder than the other. Plastic cups filled with water start flying across a brightly lit meeting room, spilling their contents on a Kanban board, missing their intended recipient by a few inches.
One of them is going to lose his job the very next day. The other one is going to bathe in his little moment of victory. A victory he didn’t even deserve from an objective standpoint. But objectivity went out the window a few minutes ago, giving in to raw emotions and impaired thinking.
Most people tend to argue with their hearts, rather than their heads.
And when you need to keep your cool, that’s the most dangerous thing you could do. Most of us aren’t even aware of our behavior during an argument. But carefully watching your step and analyzing your opponent can give you the upper hand in any argument you’ll find yourself in.
Disclaimer: Might not work on your wife. I take no responsibility for divorce or homicide caused by following this guide.
I also don’t care much about politics. So if I use a politician as an example, that does neither make me go against nor with their views. Claiming otherwise would ironically be a logical fallacy. Read on to learn more.
Logical fallacies — How to identify, avoid and counter
Logical fallacies are arguments that hold no real weight and are abused in a discussion or debate to discredit and undermine the opponent. Their reasoning is flawed.
Using logical fallacies in an argument is often a good indicator that someone has no real arguments left to bring forth. They are cornered.
If you don’t know these fallacies, you can feel tempted to address them or fall for them, in which case you often will respond with a fallacy of your own or accept one as a valid statement. So let’s take a look at these pitfalls.
1. Ad Hominem (Insults)
The most common logical fallacy is called an ad hominem, which is Latin for “to the man”. It often consists of petty insults, misogyny or other attempts to discredit a person by means of their character, without truly addressing the argument at hand.
For example, calling someone a liar in response to a claim is a logical fallacy. You should rather address his point and prove that it is a lie by providing relevant evidence.
Simply answering with “You’re a moron” or other insults falls into the same camp. It’s not doing anything to argue about the topic of the discussion. It’s just an attempt at discrediting the person, making them look like, well, a moron.
BUT: Ending a valid and logical argument with an insult does not count as an ad hominem, however rude it may be. So “You’re an incredible idiot because [Valid Reason].” does not count as an ad hominem.
How to deal with it: Don’t let it get to you. Whatever bad thing the other person may say against your person, it’s not a valid argument. You should let them know that this insult is futile and urge them to bring up another, more reasonable argument. They will likely start stuttering or repeating themselves.
2. Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)
Another common fallacy is the so-called appeal to authority. It’s a fallacious attempt at making oneself or one’s argument more believable by abusing the reputation of authority.
A good example is the character Gothel in Disney’s Tangled. In a scene, Gothel starts to sing “Mother knows best” in an attempt to keep Rapunzel from leaving the tower and exploring the outside world.
The whole song is one huge appeal to authority, where the sole argument is “Don’t go outside, it’s bad and dangerous. Because I (the authority) said so.”, without ever providing any objective evidence.
Authority should never be abused in an argument. The argument should be able to stand on its own. Having authority alone does not guarantee credibility in a specific topic of that field.
How to deal with it: Explain that just because some reputable person said that something is true, doesn’t make it true. Instead, insist on receiving an actual argument with objective evidence.
3. Appeal to Emotion (Ad Passiones)
An appeal to emotion is another way of using faulty logic by trying to abuse the opponent’s emotions for one’s argumentation, rather than truth and evidence.
To follow the example from my prior entry, again, Gothel uses the appeal to emotion to keep “her daughter” inside the tower. She tries to appeal to Rapunzel’s fear and empathy, telling her that Gothel would be heartbroken if Rapunzel ever left or something happened to her.
A more well-known appeal to emotion comes from parents whose children don’t want to eat up their meal or veggies. Often, parents will come up with arguments like “children are starving in Africa who’d be grateful to have something to eat!”
While not inherently wrong, this is an appeal to emotion, trying to induce remorse in the child. As the child is often not able to properly argue back (or identify this fallacy), it’s a somewhat abusive form of parenting.
How to deal with it: Just because someone else has it worse, doesn’t make your dissatisfaction less important. Abusing people and emotions as leverage in an argument is a poor choice of argument.
Don’t let them fill you with guilt. If your argument is valid, so is your standpoint. Regardless of its morale or ethics. Let them know that what they’re doing is to try and hold you emotionally hostage.
4. False Cause Fallacy
The false cause fallacy misinterprets a given event as a reason for another event. You surely have heard the phrase “correlation does not equal causation”, which is used in countering this fallacy.
A good example can be found in the Sitcom “Friends”, where Joey tries to get Rachel into paying for the broken fridge because “she’s the reason it broke”.
How to deal with it: Directly address that there’s no direct causation and that other factors also play a role, making the last argument irrelevant.
5. You too (Tu Quoque)
The “you too” fallacy is often called an appeal to hypocrisy. If someone tries to disprove a point by accusing the claimant of hypocrisy, that’s a logical fallacy. Whether or not your point was hypocritical does not change the fact that you made a valid point.
It’s often used to shift the blame back to the attacker instead of addressing the point that was made.
For example, many rich people speak up against poverty or the high costs of education. People, who dislike or envy these people for their wealth would often argue “what do you know about poverty? You’re rich!” That is a logical fallacy. Just because someone is wealthy, does not make them blind to poverty.
How to deal with it: Let the opponent know that your point has nothing to do with the argument. They should rather address the point than discuss your morals or ethics on the matter.
6. Whataboutism
This fallacy is pretty similar to the tu quoque fallacy above.
This time it’s not about shifting the blame back to the attacker, but to justify one’s behavior by naming other people who did similar things in the past.
A popular example here would be Donald Trump, who responded to the criticism against the assassination of Suleimani by saying that Obama commanded drone strikes during his presidency.
While it’s true that Obama has ordered drone strikes, his presidency has long since ended. The focus should entirely be on the current topic. The past does not justify the present.
How to deal with it: Bring the opponent back to the here and now. It doesn’t matter what other people did. This argument is about him alone. Saying others are bad too does not excuse him. He has to take responsibility for his actions. Challenge him to try and bring a better argument, one that doesn’t rely on pointing his finger at others.
7. Strawman Argument
The strawman is tricky, as it twists the meaning of an argument in such a way that it makes it easier for the attacker to fight it.
Instead of addressing the point you made, your opponent will put it as if your standpoint was different, then criticize you for that distorted standpoint.
If you want to see 2 Minutes of strawmen non-stop, watch Jordan Peterson in an interview with Cathy Newman. She’s doing just that with “So you’re saying…”
How to deal with it: The best course of action here would be to simply ignore the fallacy and move on with the real point you’re trying to make and defend.
If you want to, you can call out your opponent for that fallacy by explaining that your standpoint differs from your opponent’s claim. Ask them to explain why they think their view is equal and let them justify that. Chances are, they can’t. Much like our dear Cathy here.
8. Begging the Question
Begging the question is a fallacy in which a claim is already taken as truth without providing real evidence other than the claim itself. This sounds a bit bloated, but it’s tricky to explain. An example will quickly make it clear.
German politician and drug czar, Marlene Mortlers, was asked why cannabis is prohibited, while alcohol is legal, to which she replied (no kidding!): “Because cannabis is an illegal drug.” (duh! who would have thought?)
This will likely extend to circular reasoning (B because of A because of B etc.)
How to deal with it: Point out that the existence of a claim does not prove its truth. Two points connected this way can’t automatically prove each other right. They need a root argument that validates them.
9. The Burden of Proof (Onus Probandi)
The full Latin phrase states: “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” and means: “The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not the one disputing it. This is also a core element of law and prosecution.
In easier words, this means that whoever claims something to be true, has to prove it. It’s not your job to prove the contrary to him.
It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something for example, which is often used in discussions regarding religion and whether god exists or not.
Claiming something to be true simply because no one can disprove it is another fallacy called “Argument from ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam)”. Just because the non-existence of god can’t be proven (since it can’t be observed) doesn’t make the claim that god exists true.
I know this might offend some people, but hey, I don’t make the rules.
How to deal with it: If someone tries to shift the burden of proof to you, remind them that they are the ones making the claim, therefore it is their responsibility to prove it. Their claim remains untrue for as long as they are unable to provide evidence.
10. The fallacy fallacy
The last fallacy on this list is a good reminder that a fallacy does not necessarily make a statement wrong. Much like an insult does not necessarily make it an ad hominem attack.
Just because a claim has been argued poorly and ridden with fallacies, does not make the claim itself wrong.
How to deal with it: You should avoid using a fallacy your opponent has used as the pivot of your counter-argument. You can point out the fallacies as stated above, but you should still address the real issue and provide a good argument of your own.
The takeaway
By avoiding these fallacies yourself and noticing them in the speech of your opponent, you will be able to argue logically and without giving in to wrong impulses, like anger from being insulted.
- Don’t listen to insults
- Don’t let your opponent twist your words
- Make sure that each argument and claim they use has actual merit in the debate. Don’t fall for traps.
A lot of discussions, especially on the Internet, often explode in insults and hate speech, because one or both sides have started bringing fallacies into their arguments. An interesting debate quickly turns into a battlefield of accusations and bullying this way.
Don’t get baited into this. You’re better than that.
There are many more fallacies to watch out for, but this article has already gotten really long. Let me know in the comments if you found this useful and I will write more about these verbal traps.
Thank you for reading!
Kevin is an editor and writer for the ILLUMINATION publication. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.
