Don't be fooled by faulty politics.

Explore the most common logical fallacies used in American politics.

But, what even is a fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. It's like a trick or illusion of thought, often used sneakily by politicians, pundits, and media to fool voters. Identifying fallacies is a superpower—it allows you to see through weak political arguments and spot the errors in political rhetoric.

Strong political arguments are built on solid evidence and sound logic. Fallacies, however, rely on emotional manipulation, distraction, or misinformation. By learning these common pitfalls, you can build better arguments and make more informed voting decisions.

Straw Man

Misrepresenting a political opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

False Cause

Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between political events means that one is the cause of the other.

Appeal to Emotion

Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling political argument.

The Fallacy Fallacy

Presuming that because a political claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the policy itself is necessarily wrong.

Slippery Slope

Asserting that if we pass political policy A, then extreme outcome Z will eventually happen, therefore A should not be passed.

Ad Hominem

Attacking your political opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their policy argument.

Tu Quoque

Avoiding having to engage with political criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering criticism with criticism.

Personal Incredulity

Saying that because one finds a complex political issue difficult to understand, the proposed solution must be wrong or a hoax.

Special Pleading

Moving the goalposts to create exceptions when a political claim is shown to be false.

Loaded Question

Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that the politician can't answer without appearing guilty.

Burden of Proof

Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the politician making the claim, but with the opposition to disprove it.

Ambiguity

Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead voters or avoid committing to a position.

The Gambler's Fallacy

Believing that past political events dictate the statistical outcome of independent future elections.

Bandwagon

Appealing to the popularity of a policy or candidate as validation that it is the right choice.

Appeal to Authority

Using the opinion of an authority figure or celebrity endorsement in place of an actual political argument.

Composition/Division

Assuming that what's true about one voter or small faction applies to the entire political party or nation.

No True Scotsman

Making an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms of a political party or movement.

Genetic

Judging a political policy or idea as good or bad based solely on which party or politician proposed it.

Black-or-White

Presenting only two alternative political choices as the only possibilities, when more nuanced options exist.

Begging the Question

A circular political argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise of the argument.

Appeal to Nature

Arguing that a political or social policy is justified simply because it is 'natural' or aligns with the 'natural order.'

Anecdotal

Using personal political experience or an isolated constituent story instead of a valid argument or statistics.

The Texas Sharpshooter

Cherry-picking economic or social data to suit a political narrative, ignoring overall trends.

Middle Ground

Saying that a political compromise between two extremes must inherently be the correct policy.

Appeal to Tradition

Arguing that a law or political system is right simply because it has been that way for a long time.

Argument from Ignorance

Asserting that a political conspiracy is true because it hasn't been proven false.

Red Herring

Attempting to redirect the political debate to a completely different issue to avoid answering a difficult question.

Hasty Generalization

Drawing a broad political conclusion based on a tiny sample of voters or events.

Circular Reasoning

A type of reasoning where a political proposition is supported by premises that assume the proposition is true.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Assuming that because political event B came after event A, A must have caused B.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Reasoning that a failed political policy or war must continue because of the lives or money already lost.

Nirvana Fallacy

Rejecting a good political solution to a societal problem because it is not a perfect utopian fix.

Spotlight Fallacy

Assuming that the intense media coverage of a specific political scandal or demographic represents the whole.

Shotgun Argumentation

Firing so many allegations at a political opponent that they cannot possibly answer or debunk them all.

Survivorship Bias

Concentrating on the successful political campaigns or policies while inadvertently overlooking the failures.

Guilt by Association

Attempting to discredit a political idea by associating it with a heavily disliked person or group.

Appeal to Consequences

Arguing that a political reality must be false because the consequences of it being true are terrifying or undesirable.

Moral Equivalence

Comparing a minor political gaffe with a major atrocity, suggesting they are equally bad.

False Analogy

Assuming that because managing a government is like running a business in one way, it must be exactly like a business in all ways.

Wishful Thinking

Forming political conclusions based on what represents a pleasing outcome rather than on hard evidence.

Appeal to Novelty

Arguing that a political candidate or policy is superior solely because they are an 'outsider' or completely new.

Motte and Bailey

Conflating a modest, defensible political stance (Motte) with a highly controversial, extreme one (Bailey).