Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tu quoque [a] is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical.
Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy. For example, one's opponent's action appears as forbidden torture, one's own actions as "enhanced interrogation methods", the other's violence ...
A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it. Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Whataboutism is a special form of the ad hominem fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. [27] [28] [29] It is particularly associated with contemporary Russian propaganda. [30] [31] [32] Appeal to ignorance is another fallacy due to ...
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force [1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy , which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion . Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies , which contain erroneous ...
Critics point out hypocrisy in Trump’s ‘offensive’ and ‘desperate’ visit to McDonald’s
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, [1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. Arguments from incredulity can take the form: