Fault Library

Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument

Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as a validation

Claiming something is true because an authority figure says it is, without providing evidence

Replacing sound logical reasoning with emotional manipulation

Arguing that something is good or right because it's traditional or has been done for a long time

Appealing to irrelevant factors or considerations

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

Claiming that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, simply by association

Selectively choosing data that supports your argument while ignoring contradictory evidence

Assuming that the middle position between two extremes must be correct

Justifying an action by pointing out that others do the same thing

Asking a question that contains a presupposition that the respondent may wish to deny

Using the conclusion as a premise, creating a circular argument

Assuming correlation implies causation.

Drawing a comparison between two things that are not actually comparable

Presenting only two options when more exist (black-and-white fallacy)

Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient evidence

Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue

Arguing that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences

Assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole

Believing that past random events affect the probability of future random events

Vague qualifiers that create an impression of meaningful statement while allowing deniability

Language that deliberately obscures, disguises, or reverses meaning

Suggesting everyone is doing something, so you should too

Using a common phrase to shut down debate or critical thinking

Suggesting something is better because it's new or modern

Introducing uncertainty without substantiation

Giving equal weight to unequal positions

Using fear to influence acceptance of a claim

Using figurative language to frame an issue in a particular way

Framing a question that contains a presupposition

Being deliberately vague to appeal to multiple audiences

Extreme exaggeration for emphasis or effect

Attributing human characteristics to non-human entities

Repeating phrases or ideas for emphasis

Asking a question to make a point rather than to get an answer

Using a mild or indirect term to replace one considered harsh or blunt

Using a harsh or derogatory term instead of a neutral one

Using words that evoke strong emotions rather than neutral alternatives

Using loaded terms to categorize people or ideas, often with stigmatizing effect

Using words with positive connotations to create approval without justification

Using words with negative connotations to create disapproval without justification

Using vague, emotionally appealing words with little substantive meaning

Embedding controversial assumptions in statements

Using words that strengthen or amplify emotional impact

Using words that reduce perceived severity or importance

No significant loaded language is present in the text