Monthly Archives: February 2013

Appeal to Nature – wherein a judgment is based solely on whether the subject of the judgment is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’. Refutation: “What is” not the same as “what should be”.  Example  – Albrecht: “Bunny,  cannabis is healthy and good for … Continue reading →

Two Wrongs Make a Right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no … Continue reading →

Naturalistic Fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. Refutation: This is not a fallacy if all the events in the universe have been absolutely predestined. If they … Continue reading →

Appeal to Poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth)  Refutation: Arguments stand on their own, based on their validity and support for their … Continue reading →

Appeal to Tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.  Refutation: Long standing traditions may have emotional value, but that doesn’t make for a logical reason why the tradition should … Continue reading →

 Appeal to Novelty  (argumentum ad novitam) –  where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.  Refutation:  Solutions are proposed actions that affect the future in a way to produce a specific … Continue reading →

Wishful Thinking –  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.  Refutation: Arguments stand on their own,  based on their validity … Continue reading →

Appeal to Spite –  a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people’s bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Refutation: Arguments stand on their own,  based on their validity and support for their … Continue reading →

Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.  Refutation: Ridicule is an emotional parry. Ignore the ridicule and focus on the logic of the argument and the … Continue reading →

Pathetic Fallacy – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.  Refutation: Inanimate objects have no mind, will, or emotions.  Example: Arthur: Beatrice, after the Obamacare is fully implemented, healthcare will have no heart and soul, and … Continue reading →