Spot the Flaw in a Politician's Argument With This Guide to Logical Fallacies

We remember things thatconfirm our beliefsmore than things that dont.

(Of course, some arguments can just be based on lies.

We also have a guide forfact-checking those.)

Ad antiquitatem (an appeal to tradition)

Not every tradition is good.

An ad antiquitatem fallacy is when an argument relies on tradition to support it.

For example, in arguing against gay marriage, many people cited tradition as a reason against it.

During the 2016 election, Donald Trump often made ad hominem attacks, including ones against Mitt Romney.

Hemocked Romney for walking like a penguin.

He also repeatedly called Jeb Bush low-energy.

According toThe Atlantic, 4 percent of Americans believe that lizard people control politics.

Though theres no definitive proof of this, it hasnt been proven false either.

But this anecdote doesnt really tell us what Obamacare does or look at the possible consequences of Obamacare.

Some arguments are just repeated over and over again.

For example, many politicians run campaign ads during election season.

And a lot of claims are repeatedly made, but that doesnt necessarily mean theyre true.

But just because a lot of people think so, doesnt mean its true.

Similarly, even if an expert is cited, its important to be skeptical.

Sometimes people can misrepresent their opposing argument and make their opposing argument sound foolish.

Cherry picking is also extremely common in politics.

A lot of politicians use data that makes them look better like an improved economy or increased trade.

When listening to statistics from politicans, look for the context of the data.

Circular arguments are when someone uses their argument to prove their argument.

For example, Wisconsin Gov.

Scott Walker said that marijuana shouldnt be legalized because it wasnt socially acceptable.

Most folks with marijuana wouldnt be sitting around a wedding reception smoking marijuana.

People arent openly smoking marijuana because weed is illegal.

This reasoning is like arguing that weed shouldnt be legal because its against the law.

Though circular arguments arent always as obvious as this example, circular arguments often occur in political debates.

Generalization is common in politics, especially when it comes to stereotyping.

These stereotypes arent as true as we believe them to be.

This response misses the point and doesnt actually respond to his question.

Sometimes, the consequences are logical, but other times, theyre heavily exaggerated and just untrue.