Most irritating logical fallacy

[megamanenm]

So we have the ad hominem (Latin for to the man), countering a claim by attacking the person: "You shouldn't believe anything he says, he knows nothing about it."

The ad ignorantium, Something is try because you don't know it's true. "Those light had to have been from an UFO! What else could it be?"

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc, A happened before B, so A caused B. "He plays lots of violent videogames, how can you be surprised that he's so violent?"

False Dichotomy, Saying there are only two possibilities when there are many: "If evolution isn't true then creationism has to be."

Circular reasoning: The conclusion is it's premise. "God exists because he wrote the bible."

Tu quoque (Latin for you too): justifying something because someone else did it too: "But he also copied the homework of someone else!"

Appeal to authority: Your argument is true because an authoritative person said it/also thinks so: "Carrots do improve your eyesight! My teacher said so."

Slippery slope: Some event will have to lead to another. "You can't do weed, you'll end up doing heroin eventually!"

Appeal to law: X is bad/good because it's against/forced by the law: "Of course killing people is bad, it's against the law after all."


These are just a few basic examples, but I could go on forever. So simply, which ones piss you off the most?

 

[unoleian]

An ad hominem is essentially a denial of the argument at hand, attempting to switch focus, and really ticks me off.

But a slippery slope is pretty annoying, in terms of a debate. Unless you're prepared with a complete rebuttal, they're hard to convincingly refute.

 

[Lust]

This one, "This game sucks, therefore, all games in this genre suck."

 

[Cherry Cola]

Godwin's Law

I once said that I thought that the olympics were pointless.

It ended with some guy liking me to Hitler.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

An old favorite, when I asked why a certain character bears the name of an ancient Greek nation when they had so little resemblance, "It's all explained in the books." Not really a fallacy, but still annoying. Of those listed, I'm definitely going with:

So we have the ad hominem (Latin for to the man), countering a claim by attacking the person: "You shouldn't believe anything he says, he knows nothing about it."

Brings back memories of a fun little runaround with another forum member over 9/11.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Those who completely state contradictions to an argument with no evidence or argument to defend their positions because they have such a high opinion of themselves "It's wrong because I am the god and i deem it so"

 

[megamanenm]

An ad hominem is essentially a denial of the argument at hand, attempting to switch focus, and really ticks me off.

But a slippery slope is pretty annoying, in terms of a debate. Unless you're prepared with a complete rebuttal, they're hard to convincingly refute.

Switching focus is called a strawman attack.

 

[Souplex]

I have gotta go with ad homenim attacks.

 

[GammaZord]

An ad hominem is essentially a denial of the argument at hand, attempting to switch focus, and really ticks me off.

But a slippery slope is pretty annoying, in terms of a debate. Unless you're prepared with a complete rebuttal, they're hard to convincingly refute.

Switching focus is called a strawman attack.

"switiching focus" is more specifically a red herring: a deliberate attempt to change the subject.

Straw man is deliberately misconstruing the opponents argument into an easy-to-refute argument, like how a man made of straw would easily fall over.

So I guess straw man is in a way a switch of focus (EDIT: like many logical fallacies) but red herring is more deliberate.

OT: slippery slope

 

[unoleian]

An ad hominem is essentially a denial of the argument at hand, attempting to switch focus, and really ticks me off.

But a slippery slope is pretty annoying, in terms of a debate. Unless you're prepared with a complete rebuttal, they're hard to convincingly refute.

Switching focus is called a strawman attack.

Well, yes, but what I was getting at is your typical ad hominem attack generally overlooks the argument at hand and attmepts to draw focus to the arguer's credibility, instead of providing a valid refutation to the original proposition. A straw-man generally attacks the argument itself, not the person making it. But the end result is the same. Focus on the original statement is diverted.

 

[Swarley]

Slippery Slope, let me see if I can find the SMBC Comic about it.

edit: That was easier than I thought

Edit edit: Here's the votey too.

 

[PasDeChat]

False Dichotomy, a brilliant idea. It spawned dualistic thinking, black or white, heaven or hell live or die. there are no alternative, no real choices, no clever solutions.

I truly despise the inability to accept or even consider an alternative solution to any issue.

 

[oppp7]

If you believe A, you also believe in B, where B is an extreme example of A to the point of being rediculous.

 

[hopeneverdies]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

I once said that I thought that the olympics were pointless.

It ended with some guy liking me to Hitler.

Godwin's Law.

OT: Ad hoc.

EDIT: Whoops, Post Hoc. I get that crap all the time. Which leads to a slippery slope.

 

[CoverYourHead]

Circular reasoning always ticked me off, mostly because it is nearly impossible to disprove to someone who is adamant in their belief in at least one of those things.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

I once said that I thought that the olympics were pointless.

It ended with some guy liking me to Hitler.

Godwin's Law.

My mistake, shall edit it now!

 

[migo]

Circular reasoning always ticked me off, mostly because it is nearly impossible to disprove to someone who is adamant in their belief in at least one of those things.

Ditto. It's a more specific form of a false premise.

 

[Dags90]

False analogy. It's not a formal fallacy, but it's an exceedingly common one. I see a lot of terrible analogies around.

Proof by example is probably my least favorite formal fallacy.

 

[ultrachicken]

Circular reasoning. The reason I try to avoid religious debates is because all too often (not every time) I run into that, and it's impossible to argue with someone who's so stubbornly fixed on it.

 

[Yossarian1507]

None of the mentioned irritate me as much as logical Catch-22 (Hah, you thought I picked that username JUST because I loved the book? Well... You're right, it's purely a coincidence but nevermind )

What am I taking about? Situations like that (which sadly happens to me from time to time):

Something bad/awkward happened, and thanks to some gossip and mislead point of view, you are the painted as a horrible, horrible man who did something unforgivable (or at least critique worthy), even if it's completely false or only 5% correct.

You try to explain yourself... And you can usually hear 'only guilty explains himself'. You're doomed. If you won't try to explain yourself... 'Then you are admitting your guilt'. You're doomed as well.

Seriously, whenever I hear something like that I want to hit that person saying it in the face with a wooden table.