I’m starting a list of now-common fallacies. Not all of their labels are original to me.
Argumentum ad Sneerium (definition): The fallacious tactic of substituting derision or disdain for responsive argument.
Argumentum ex Rectum: The practice of arguing by pulling ‘facts’ out of one’s ass and shoving them insincerely into a debate. Alternative definition: Making shit up.
Argumentum ad Hitler: In the heat of argument, claiming that any deviation from one’s own position amounts to agreeing with Adolf Hitler, basically or literally.
Argumentum ad Hitler, hypocrisy version: Committing ad Hitler, all the while claiming that one’s own ethnic or racial identity is the best.
Argumentum ad Mysterium: The frequent accusation that one’s opponents are really sexist or racist, despite the absence of such language or behavior or apparent conscious intent.
Kafkatrap: Intimating that any denial by the accused is evidence of guilt. “Jack said Jill was paranoid, and when she told him she was not he just nodded knowingly. It was a perfect Kafkatrap.” [Based on Franz Kafka’s 1925 The Trial, in which a man is accused of crimes that are never made clear.”]
Argumentum ex Misericordia ad Verecundiam: Operationalizing the assumption that difficulties in one’s life give one privileged epistemic status in debating those who have not experienced difficulties to the same degree.
Argumentum ad Hominem Abundans: Acting on the belief that others’ successes in life, whether through effort, advantages, or privileges, disqualifies them from moral standing and legitimates invective against them.
Feel welcome to add other in the Comments.
Here is another I was recently involved in. What you do is when you arguing something contentious you simply keep the conversation going with banal and trite arguments/comments. Then, out of the blue, restate your original assertion as if it is now proven. When it happened to me I was laughing so much I just let it go and said nothing.
Reply