Logical fallacies

attacking something about the character of the opposing side, instead of engaging with the argument or offering a critique

using double meanings and language ambiguity to mislead

appeal to a personal, individual observation as relates to the topic in question

often used to dismiss statistical analysis

using opinion of authority figure or institution in place of an actual argument

manipulating emotional response in lieu of valid argument

a huge part of Donald Trump's playbook

arguing that b/c something is “natural” it is valid / justified / inevitable / good / ideal

appealing to popularity as evidence of validation

Retort: "When everyone once believed the earth was flat — did that make it true?"

presenting two alternative states as the only options, when more possibilities exist

very commonly used by political and media resources as a way to polarize issues

assuming what is true of one part of something must be applied to all parts

presuming that a poorly argued claim, or one in which a fallacy has been made, is wrong

presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things implies causation

putting a tremendous amount of weight on previous events, believing they will influence future outcomes (even when outcome is random)

also a psychological bias

value judging based on where something comes from

asking a question with an assumption built in, so it can't be answered without appearing guilty

claiming a compromise between two extremes must be the truth

the media establishment is often guilty of this for a number of reasons: lack of time for thorough inquiry; need for ratings; available field of pundits and wonks; established programming formats, and so on

making an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws

saying that because a concept or argument is difficult to understand, it can't be true

arguing that a small change or decision will inevitably lead to larger-than-intended (perhaps even disastrous) consequences rapidly

moving goalpost to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false

misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack

cherry-picking data to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption

the impending era of big data will increase the prevalence of this type of sheister

avoiding having to engage with criticism by criticizing the accuser