Types of Fallacies and Examples
This page is currently under development for the Debate Team and rhetoric classes. I’ll update it based on what we cover.
Ad Hominem
Another popular fallacy is to attack the proponent of an argument instead of the argument itself. Politicians (often rightfully) get attacked this way, but it’s important to know that this argument is fallacious. An argument must be examined for its validity regardless of the proponent’s character. Obviously, character is an important appeal rhetorically, but sound arguments can be made by unpopular people or groups. Here are some examples of ad hominem fallacies:
- The President backs Social Security privatization, so that policy must be bad because he’s a moron.
- Anything Michael Jackson stands for is wrong because he was a pervert.
- Joseph Ratzinger can’t be a good Pope because he was once part of the Hitler Youth Movement.
Each of the above ad hominem fallacies attacks the person and not the issue or potential issues they support. Instead of attacking Bush’s character, the speaker should describe why Social Security privatization is a bad idea; on the flip side, giving Bush’s proposal credit because one values his character is equally fallacious (more on that in the “false authority” section). Michael Jackson’s support for cancer, AIDS research, eliminating poverty, etc. has nothing to do with what may or may not have gone on in his bedroom. Finally, although being a NAZI is atrocious, having the label thrown around (like it is today) is misleading. Specifically in the case of Pope Benedict XVI, his being part of the Hitler Youth Movement does not make him a NAZI or a bad Pope. In 1930s and 40s Germany, parents would have had to answer to the Gestapo if their children didn’t have Hitler Youth uniforms. Also, “membership” was compulsory (The History Place). Remember, character is important, but it can’t replace sound argumentation.
While we’re on the subject of Naziism and Fascism, many would be offended at trivializing the horrors of the regime by irresponsibly hurling those labels at those one disagrees with.
False Authority
This fallacy is the opposite of the ad hominem fallacy. When speakers put their support behind an argument (or product as the case usually is in our ferociously consumerist society) that they have no expertise in, it’s fallacious. This fallacy is also called “borrowed authority” because the speakers are often experts (or just popular) in one area, but they support an issue or product for which they have no expertise. Consider the following examples:
- A prominent basketball coach endorses a local jewelry business, so the jeweler must be a great place to buy precious gems.
- A celebrity uses a certain skin care product that gives her a shiny, clear complexion; if she looks good after using it, you will too.
- Tons of celebrities are hopping on the anti-[fill-in-the-country] bandwagon and asking for boycotts and divestments; if all these “important” people are doing it, they must know what they’re doing, so I should join their cause.
We see these statements and endorsements often. A great basketball coach can probably help improve your jump shot, but he or she has no expertise of jewelry quality or service. The celebrity may be considered a beautiful woman, and the acne medication may have cleared up her complexion, but read the fine print—”individual results may vary.” It’s not likely that any acne medication is going to transform a person’s complexion the way make-up, airbrushing, special lighting, and plastic surgery will. Finally, celebrities who endorse social issues are trying to do their part to make this world a better place for you, me, and the entire human race, but they have no authority when it comes to sociology, economics, history, or even diplomacy. Reality is often more complex than just having things taken care of by sending in money to an organization. As I stated before, character is an extremely important rhetorical appeal; however, good or bad character (or popularity) is no substitute for sound argumentation.
Recently, a type of false authority fallacy has come up related to the public fued between J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter Stars Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson. Rowling laments, “Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created” (USA Today, 29 Sept 2025). Rowling points out that these “spokespeople” aren’t legitimate as the arbiters of the Harry Potter universe. We could go into the intentional fallacy, but the goal here is to show how false authority can work when someone with cultural capital (like a celebrity) becomes the voice of a franchise.
Michael Withey’s Mastering Logical Fallacies
This book provides us with the vocabulary of logical fallacies and many good examples. Withey defines fallacies and details arguments that are fallacious. These arguments lack substance when scrutinized. The appeals might be able to provide logical conclusions, but these appeals are rhetorical chicanery and attempt to move audiences based on unsound logic. If I haven’t mentioned the Ancients’ views on truth, I’ll do that now.
How about we at least try to find examples of the following:
Appeal to Anger (p. 40)
This next example could be a red herring (p. 162) or appeal to fear (p. 58), but I’ll present it here as an appeal to anger. These categories are for an academic exercise and not to claim that pure fallacies exist and are self-evident. Consider this practice.
While campaigning for U.S. Senate in 1964, papa Bush dodged the issue of rampant discrimination (red herring) and implied that he would look out for the white majority that wasn’t protected by the Civil Rights Act. In the context of his speech to an audience of white workers (Carter xiii), Bush was also trying to appeal to the anger of the workers, who might believe minorities would be getting so-called special rights from this act. Bush’s strategy is typical of those who claim an oppressed group is trying to gain “special rights”—rights that somehow supercede their rights. Sometimes people of a majority argue against civil rights by claiming that they—people of the majority—aren’t being helped by a certain piece of legislation. A politician spotlights this supposed injustice and evokes anger from a group. Here’s the quote:
“The new civil rights act was passed to protect 14 percent of the people. I’m also worried about the other 86 percent.”
–George H. W. Bush quoted in Carter
So that’s it. We have incontrovertible evidence that the 41st President of the US was an absolute racist…well, let’s offer another example that might mitigate that statement. During the 1991 Louisiana Governor’s race, George H.W. Bush came out against the Republican David Duke (a long-time KKK member) in favor of the Democrat Edwin Edwards. Bush also provided the following unequivocal statement about David Duke:
“When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don’t believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society.”
–George H. W. Bush quoted in Suro
Moralistic Fallacy (p. 139)–this is the case because it ought to be this way
The English Department falls victim to this fallacy quite often, especially when budget cuts head our way. The assumption is that we ought to have tenure-line faculty for every literary period; therefore, the powers that be must give us faculty lines. There will also be appeals to tradition and Western civilization.
There are other arguments that follow this that make us feel good to say, but we don’t scrutinize them closely enough. Consider the book’s example, “All people should be equal. Therefore, one person cannot have any innately superior talents compared to others” (p. 139). Let’s push our thinking here. What does it mean for all people to be equal? Do we want that across the board, or do we have caveats we assume others understand when we make claims about equality?
By the way, Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” is an interesting short story about this that might come up in a future Science Fiction & American Culture Class…
Moving the Goalposts (p. 143)–changing the parameters of a debate
The book does a good job pointing out that this means “to raise, or lower, the standard of proof required for acceptance of an argument” (p. 143), which is generally easy to see. What’s more difficulty to demonstrate (and an extremely annoying to attempt) is when the other party doesn’t stick to the parameters of the debate.
Imagine we’re debating a resolution like “The test to get a driver’s license needs to be more rigorous to decrease vehicle accidents.” The affirmative needs to defend why a more rigorous test would decrease accidents. One obvious point would be that a more rigorous test would prevent bad drivers from getting a license, meaning fewer bad drivers would be on the roads; therefore, accidents would decrease.
If the negative (opponent) refuted the affirmative’s position with claims like the following, whcih would be within or outside the parameters of the debate:
- The freedom to drive is paramount and any limitations would hurt people’s chances to be productive members of society.
- Bad drivers don’t necessarily follow the law, so not having a license might be illegal, but it doesn’t stop a bad driver from getting a car and driving.
- Contemporary vehicles are the safest they’ve ever been, so accidents would be less dangerous.
Of course, a strategic debater doesn’t just try to think of the straight-up, point-counterpoint approach but also thinks about changing the perspective of the debate.
Naturalistic Fallacy (p. 150)
This fallacy uses standards supposedly derived from nature to claim what humans should do. The key to this fallacy is recognizing that “nature,” isn’t a good arbiter for establishing the validity of something. After all, meerkats will kill rival females’ babies and make the mothers nurse her own babies…it’s nature.
William Speed Weed’s “106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney” (Popular Science, 11 May 2004) used to be a staple in the courses I taught, but I stopped assigning it. I ought to rethink that. In the article, he discusses advertising claims. The claim of “natural” is quite interesting, and it makes us really pause on the term.
Sunk Cost (p. 187)–aka defense of marriage
I mostly see this in personal interactions, but there are some bigger, societal-wide examples. Withey rightly points out that this is less about logic and more about “psychology and economics” (p. 167). Maybe the emotion isn’t fear, but we might not want to give up because, as the cliché goes, “hope springs eternal.” You’ve put so much time, effort, and money into something that won’t provide a return or work out, but you just can’t let it go. This happens when someone buys a ring and gives it to their future spouse to be engaged. Months of planning for a wedding occur, non-refundable deposits are made, and the couple settles into the inevitable. One (or both) of the couple finds out something rotten about their partner, something that should be a deal breaker; however, because so much effort went into planning the wedding, they go through with it. Because that makes sense, right?
Works Cited
Carter, Dan T. From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1996.
Suro, Roberto. “THE 1991 ELECTION: Louisiana; Bush Denounces Duke As Racist and Charlatan.” The New York Times, 7 Nov. 1991, p. 18. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/07/us/the-1991-election-louisiana-bush-denounces-duke-as-racist-and-charlatan.html
Wadman, Meredith. “Guns kill more U.S. kids than cancer. This emergency physician aims to prevent those firearm deaths.” Science, 6 Dec 2018. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2877
Withey, Michael. Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic. Zephyros P, 2016.