Logical Fallacy Bingo Logo

Thought terminating cliche
Appeal to Tradition
Misleading Vividness
Appeal to Probability
Wishful Thinking
Historian's Fallacy
Appeal to Spite
Association Fallacy
Appeal to Consequences
Naturalistic Fallacy
Appeal to Novelty
Fallacy of Many Questions
Dodge the question
(basically free)
Genetic Fallacy
Appeal to Hypocrisy
Fallacy of Composition
Hasty Generalization
Appeal to Motive
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Moving the Goalposts
Cherry Picking
False Analogy
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Inconsistent Comparison
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

Your Fallacies:
  1. Thought terminating cliche (wiki): A commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche, not a point.
  2. Appeal to Tradition (wiki): A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
  3. Misleading Vividness (wiki): Involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
  4. Appeal to Probability (wiki): Assumes that because something is likely to happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.
  5. Wishful Thinking (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
  6. Historian's Fallacy (wiki): Occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.
  7. Appeal to Spite (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
  8. Association Fallacy (wiki): Arguing that because two things share a property they are the same. Commonly guilt by association or honor by association.
  9. Appeal to Consequences (wiki): The conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action (If P, then Q will occur. Q is desirable. Therefore, P is true. ).
  10. Naturalistic Fallacy (wiki): Attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term -good- in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties.
  11. Appeal to Novelty (wiki): Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
  12. Fallacy of Many Questions (wiki): Someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved (loaded question).
  13. Dodge the question (basically free): Lets talk about something else.
  14. Genetic Fallacy (wiki): Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
  15. Appeal to Hypocrisy (wiki): The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.
  16. Fallacy of Composition (wiki): Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
  17. Hasty Generalization (wiki): Basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
  18. Appeal to Motive (wiki): Where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
  19. Slippery Slope Fallacy (wiki): Asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact.
  20. Moving the Goalposts (wiki): Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
  21. Cherry Picking (wiki): Act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
  22. False Analogy (wiki): An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
  23. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (wiki): A faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
  24. Inconsistent Comparison (wiki): Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
  25. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (wiki): Improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data that the larger data set does not support.

Show All Fallacies
Generate a New Card