1. Appeal to Novelty (wiki): Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
2. Argumentum ad Populum (wiki): Where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
3. 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.
4. False Dilemma (wiki): Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
5. Abusive Fallacy (wiki): A type of ad hominem when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
6. 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.
7. Inconsistent Comparison (wiki): Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
8. Fallacy of Composition (wiki): Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
9. 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.
10. Overwhelming Exception (wiki): An accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
11. 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.
12. Association Fallacy (wiki): Arguing that because two things share a property they are the same. Commonly guilt by association or honor by association.
13. Factually Inaccurate (basically free): That's not true.
14. 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. ).
15. Appeal to Probability (wiki): Assumes that because something is likely to happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.
16. Appeal to Fear (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
17. Slippery Slope Fallacy (wiki): Asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact.
18. Special pleading (wiki): Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption (includes No True Scotsman).
19. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (wiki): A faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
20. Genetic Fallacy (wiki): Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Poisoning the well (wiki): A type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
24. Chronological Snobbery (wiki): Where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.
25. Appeal to Ridicule (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

Possible Center Squares

Dodge the question (basically free): Lets talk about something else.
Factually Inaccurate (basically free): That's not true.
Opinion as Fact (basically free): It is true if I say it enough.

Standard Squares

Abusive Fallacy (wiki): A type of ad hominem when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
Appeal to Accomplishment (wiki): Where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
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. ).
Appeal to Fear (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
Appeal to Flattery (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
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.
Appeal to Motive (wiki): Where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
Appeal to Novelty (wiki): Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
Appeal to Probability (wiki): Assumes that because something is likely to happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.
Appeal to Ridicule (wiki): A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
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.
Appeal to Tradition (wiki): A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
Argument from Silence (wiki): A conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence (includes shifting the burden of proof).
Argumentum ad Populum (wiki): Where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
Association Fallacy (wiki): Arguing that because two things share a property they are the same. Commonly guilt by association or honor by association.
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.
Chronological Snobbery (wiki): Where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (wiki): A faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
Fallacy of Composition (wiki): Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
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).
False Analogy (wiki): An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
False Dilemma (wiki): Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
Genetic Fallacy (wiki): Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Hasty Generalization (wiki): Basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
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.
Inconsistent Comparison (wiki): Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Ludic Fallacy (wiki): The belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.
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.
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.
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.
Nirvana Fallacy (wiki): When solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Overwhelming Exception (wiki): An accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
Poisoning the well (wiki): A type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
Retrospective Determinism (wiki): The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
Slippery Slope Fallacy (wiki): Asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact.
Special pleading (wiki): Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption (includes No True Scotsman).
Straw man (wiki): An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (wiki): Improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data that the larger data set does not support.
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.
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.
Fallacy fallacy (wiki): Assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.

Think we should add, remove or modify a fallacy, send us an email at contact@lifesnow.com and we'll consider it.

This version of Logical Fallacy Bingo is designed with political debates in mind. It can be reasonably applied to almost any argument, especially those you are likely to find on the internet. Logical Fallacy Bingo draws from 40 common informal logical fallacies, using just these fallacies there are more than 116 decillion cards possible. We hope that this utility makes it easier to spot the rampant use of faulty logic while functioning as an entertaining game between friends.

Mouse over the fallacies on the bingo card to display a concise definition. Everything except Generate a New Card loads without refreshing the page so you don't need to worry about losing your game. If playing with others we recommend writing down the details of the fallacy and when it occurred during the debate so contested points can be reviewed.

If you have any comments, questions, or bug reports, please send them to contact@lifesnow.com