Consider also social media and fuzzy logic you might see there. I find it better to be able to name the fallacy so then you can help the person make their point better rather than be rude or attacking. We can disagree without being disagreeable. If you have a good point, a point that is better than mine, and you make your point with logic, I would prefer to hear it and go from there.
I think it is time to go back to teaching logic so the next generation can reason through the issues they will face and not fall for the logical fallacies. I challenge people reading this to look at problems with logic and make sure we don’t add to the overall problem. Learn what is logical and what appears to be logical.
False cause fallacy- You weaken your case when you come to a conclusion without having enough evidence to do so.
You do it too- Ever hear/read someone make the case that you cannot believe the other person because “they do it too,” pretending that simply because one is a hypocrite, they cannot tell the truth. Be careful when you hear this argument, many get fooled by it.
Don’t fall for getting distracted in an argument with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. That’s called a red herring logical fallacy.
The “Hasty Generalization” fallacy is when someone sees one example and pretends that the one example applies to every situation. Cannot support their claim.
There is a fallacy when a statement appeals to emotion and distracts from the real issue, urging the person to blindly follow without thinking clearly.
When we teach logic, people are able to think for themselves. We still want that.
Breaking the speed limit law is not equivalent to killing someone. Likewise, not all lies are exactly the same as the false equivalency fallacy would have you believe.
When the argument the person is making is strong, weak people attack the person - the ad hominem fallacy.
The straw man fallacy is when someone pretends the opposing side is making a point that is ridiculous and attacks the pretend point making themselves look better- unless people see through you.
You made up an argument the other side doesn’t really make and attacked that. You lost integrity when you did that.
Reasoning fails when limiting options to two - there are more options to choose from. “You’re either for us or you are against us.”
Unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely - there’s just not enough evidence to think so. It takes away your credibility when you use the Slippery slope fallacy.
Your point is just repeating what they already assumed. You are confirming their bias without any evidence or support. The conclusion is where you started. Circular reasoning
People will stop believing you when you use logical fallacies. If you can point these out to friends and see through false arguments, then we have a better chance of civil discourse.