Every Logical Fallacy Explained in 11 Minutes 

i like how half of those happen cause the lack of critical thinking and the other half is caused by genuinely mean people

when you try to have a debate with someone, and they pull up any of these

Twitter user tutorial

What I've taken from this video is that every argument I've ever had or heard in my entire life were all fallacies

I particularly like the placement of the "fallacy fallacy." Someone using a logical fallacy isn't necessarily wrong, but they would be subject to more scrutiny because of their error.

That moment you realize that most people argue through these fallacies...almost with pride, instead of avoiding them.

OMG....Did you just jump DIRECTLY to the subject matter? No self-promotion, no ads, no garbage intro music nor begging for subs!!?? Subbed automatically.....good job

I find the Texas sharpshooter is a real issue in academia. PhD students and scientific staff heavily rely on publication and that again is dependent on conclusions that are satisfying.

Its kind of refreshing seeing this type of content on youtube, no intro, no filler, barely an outro, i love it, just straight forward and educational.

Man, this should be stickied in every discussion forum. People LOVE using strawman and ad hominem and when you point it out instead whine about being outed.

I love how I’m not even a minute in and I feel every debate is this personified.

These are my favorite Pokémon types! Thanks for explaining them!

The Chainmail Fallacy: The assumption that because one’s argument for a position is invalid, their entire position is invalid. An example is “That one picture of the Loch Ness Monster was fake, so the Loch Ness Monster must also be fake.” The name comes from treating arguments like links in chainmail. If you remove a single link, you still have a study chainmail at the end. It’s related to the Fallacy Fallacy.

Ad Hominem is just absolutely hilarious to me because I think it works just not in the way it’s supposed to. Imagine someone’s trying to tell me that bananas are yellow and the other dude just goes “HE HAS A BALDING HAIRLINE DUDE DONT LISTEN TO HIM” then I can’t take anyone seriously anymore. Also it’s peak immaturity and I love it.

Fallacy fallacy being at the end is a cruel joke to anyone who leaves the video too early, and that’s kinda funny

Wow! The information is so dense that I spent an hour just watching and taking notes. It'll likely take me even more time to fully digest it all

Simple and snappy yet in-depth and accurate enough to be useful, I hope this channel grows exponentially.

You should do a “every objection in court explained” (Relevance, compound question, asked and answered, etc.) I think it would work well with your format.

Your observation hits the nail on the head! It's a fascinating split between the consequences of a lack of critical thinking and the impact of genuinely mean-spirited individuals. Addressing logical fallacies, like the 'fallacy fallacy,' adds another layer to the discussion-acknowledging that while a fallacy doesn't inherently disprove an argument, it invites scrutiny. This comment is a gem for fostering more thoughtful and respectful discourse.

This should be a staple in every discussion - a brilliant breakdown of common fallacies! It's disheartening to see how often strawman and ad hominem get thrown around. Your point about the lack of critical thinking and genuine meanness driving these behaviors is spot on. The "fallacy fallacy" placement is particularly insightful - acknowledging that using a logical fallacy doesn't automatically make someone wrong, but it invites closer scrutiny. Great insight into the dynamics of online discussions!

The Strawman fallacy is a weird one in debate spaces because it's simultaneously one of the most commonly correctly recognised and one of the most common to accuse someone of incorrectly...

One thing I think is important for people who don't study philosophy to know, is that most people use fallacies unknowingly. That doesn't make them valid, it just doesn't mean they are bad or dumb for using a fallacy.

This is why I quit my middle school's debate team. The teacher in charge of it literally hand-picked me after one of my argumentative essays caught her eye. I showed up to the meeting and the teacher had me do a debate with one of the members. I had an actual argument, evidence, and I was cordial the entire time. My opponent basically went through this entire list of fallacies, which I then shot down, before giving up and behaving like a bratty child. He started telling everyone that if they didn't support his side of the debate, then he wouldn't be friends with any of them anymore. He was apparently the best on the debate team, and I humilated him within 5 minutes of being there. Luckily, he got to keep his title because I grabbed my stuff and I walked straight out. The teacher stopped me and asked me what was wrong and I told her that I'd come back to the debate team once they actually knew how to properly debate and have an informative conversation rather than childishly insulting their opponent and using fallacies to make up for the fact that they had no evidence to support their side. And then like a year later i ended up in a mental hospital because extreme depression. Go figure.

One of the best yt channels out there nowadays. Good job man

What’s really scary is that a lot of people have learned to sound really convincing even if they use these methods all the time.

One of my favorites is the motte-and-bailey fallacy, in which someone starts with a controversial opinion, but pretends to have a much more modest and defensible position when challenged.

Absolutely! These insights are a much-needed guide for online discussions. It brilliantly dissects the pitfalls between a lack of critical thinking and genuine hostility. Refreshing content on RU-vid with no frills, just straight to the point and educational.

The nirvana fallacy is very dangerous one giving the fact that it sometimes prevent society from taking important decisions because "yeah, people will find a way around it anyway"

I absolutely detest the "entitled to opinion' fallacy. It's used by people who don't wanna think about their arguments from a rational point of view.

your channel is a masterpiece i will watch all of ur videos :D

This video is great and very informative. I felt like I really needed it.

There's also the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy, where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial and harder to defend. If someone challenges the claim, the arguer can say the challenger is arguing for the controversial stance and can refute any arguments for the easier stance.

When there are other videos on YT that run for seven minutes or more just to tell you one thing, this video is a revelation of how it CAN be done ... no tedious "let's get right into it" intros, no pointless padding or tedious attempts at humour. Super-high signal to noise ratio! I subscribed and liked WITHOUT being told to!

Ive been looking for a vidoe like this. Thank you.

this is an awesome and infintely rewatchable video. honestly good enough to fall asleep to

I've fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy a lot myself. Mostly out of spite or stubbornness.

It's crazy how many of these you can see being used constantly by many, many people. Online, in person, fallacies are everywhere

It was a bombardment of useful information I will watch it again😊

This is so incredibly informative!

There's also the bandwagon fallacy, which is a logical fallacy by supporting of argument using popularity, aka peer pressure. Like "most teens smoke. I'm a teen, therefore i should smoke."

4:37 Small correction: The sunk cost fallacy actually goes in both directions. The much more common direction is the one described here, where one defends continuing to invest resources in an endeavor based on the fact that resources have already invested. The other direction is arguing against the investment of further resources based on previous costs, rather than the potential cost vs. returns ratio of the next investment.

Dude these videos just are so enjoyable for me and I do not know why

I was looking for the name of a fallacy I remember talking about in college. It has to do with swapping meaning using words that have multiple definitions. Example. the word 1.) Manipulation can mean to handle or control something (or someone) skillfully 2.) to control or influence a person or situation unfairly or unscrupulously I've seen this used to attack people who present a skillful, logical argument to someone because they are 'handling them skillfully' (1) therefore they are manipulating said individual(2)

I really like the last one fallacy fallacy because it really wraps everything up, meaning even if one of these fallacies happen, doesn’t mean it’s wrong

Since you aim to educate about these many various items, here's a suggestion - leave the text on the screen a bit longer after you finish speaking. There is a cognitive conflict between trying to get what you say and at the same time seeing it explained visually and trying to get the meaning there. Even if the visuals are describing the same thing as your voice, they present a different look at the same thing and the brain (at least mine) doesn't grasp both at the same time, in such a short time window, especially for never heard-off items. Still great list and explanations (if I pause the video), thank you.

Rahh, this is very informative thank you! But also hard to watch, because I keep thinking about all the times others, or I, have done these. Let's learn!

you have to be my new favorite explain-er

Me “ gives statistics and a logical argument” My opponent “ you’re gay”

I just realized I have been using appeal to consequences quite a bit. Honestly just seeing it being described opened my eyes

Watching all of these videos. This is some useful information

The fact that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy singles out Texans is hilarious, although not entirely fair 🤣.

As someone who grew up with three elder brothers in an argumentative family, we had to suffer through alot of these logical fallacies in arguments. It feels powerful being able to tell someone that you see right through their argumentation error since you know exactly its called and because it is completely nonsensical and unfair. Only the truth and helpfulness shall prevail.

The Texas Sharpshooter is something that happens to me a lot without me knowing. I would search up specific questions not knowing that I did not consider other factors.

Extremely interesting videos ! 👍

ambiguity was so funny even tho i don't know the beatles keep up the good work man you propably rearrange the order of those andthey take like 6 hours to make a 10 min vid

My man, I didnt even know what a 'logical fallacy' was. Now I know so much. You have successfully outperformed most of my teachers

The most important thing to note about the slippery slope is that it isn’t a fallacy unless the conclusion doesn’t draw logically from the available information. Taking something to its logical conclusion is considered a logical argument and the slippery slope has been documented as real many times.

the examples for each one are so helpful

Great video. It’s funny how spmuch cross over there is between many of these, for example association, composition, division, correlation and cause…

I genuinely have encountered almost every one of these at some point, so thanks for this video. I have a gut feeling this video is going to be referenced hundreds of times.

This video just made me realize how much of these politicians use to discredit others instead of countering the said point 😭😭😭

you are the best teacher out there🙏

3:45 I need to clear something up. No one would ever talk to themselves like that. Given that assumption that I have. Whenever the statement says we. It means that the perpetrator may be asking to someone else like a girlfriend or wife or a friend as to whether they should stop to eat or not.

I stumbled upon this channel yesterday and was led by disappointment knowing that it’s a new channel - I can’t binge 💀

Hard to express how relieved I am to have the term tone policing under my belt. Something I've suffered from growing up without having a word for it

There is another. No Limits Fallacy. A fallacy that claims that because the limit of something hasn’t been found or shown that the thing shown has no limit.

Great video. Very concise. I miss this kind of RU-vid

This is probably my new favourite channel on RU-vid. Very eductional, no long intro, and the information is delivered in a very short and concise way.

Need more videos like this nowadays, to the point, no fluff, just well made good content

Im my highschool philosophy classes, our teacher taught us all of these fallacies and then had a debate with the whole class where he would argue for or against any prompt we gave him against the whole class. Of course we gave him hard things to argue, "smoking should be legal for kids", "Canada should join the US [I'm Canadian]," "Extreme sports should be illegal" and in every case he always destroyed the whole class. It was an incredibly important lesson we learned that, just because you can make a sound argument with little to no fallacies, doesn't make you correct. It just means you're good at debating, and that's it.

You’re good. I’d love to see you making a video on master suppression techniques, too. Cheers.

The fallacy fallacy is probably one of the most used yet also one that often goes unnoticed

It should be frowned upon to call an argument a type of fallacy without explaining why that argument is that kind of fallacy.

I'm so glad you did this video. I knew plenty of these before knowing their names or how to define them bc I can sniff out bullshit, but was only taught a few in school

Thanks for this!

This seems like a potentially helpful reference for improving one's own arguments, but I would caution that calling people out when they use fallacies usually backfires. Usually when I see these mentioned in the wild, it is either just a name drop or a possibly a link to the definition of the alleged fallacy. Rarely do people bother to show how the argument in question fails. Also, the absolute strongest thing that such a call out can logically prove is that a belief is poorly argued. It never disproves the underlying belief. If someone has five reasons to believe something and the one that is easiest to explain is logically shaky in the way they tried to explain it, it may be rational to be a little less confident in the belief or add qualifiers to it, but it would not be rational to abandon it entirely. By bringing up fallacies, you risk derailing the discussion towards the nature of discussion rather than the topic previously discussed. It also often comes across as a personal attack. If not worded with the utmost care, such a call out may be interpreted as an insult to the intelligence of the interlocutor. Insulting someone doesn't automatically make the rest of your argument wrong, but it frequently makes it utterly unpersuasive. Finally, formal debate is a rare form of conversation, even when people disagree. Most people just aren't looking to get into a word fight most of the time, and telling people they broke the rules to a game they weren't playing and have never studied isn't going to make you the kind of friends that listen to your views when there is disagreement.

More people need to know about these. They happen all the time and people legitimately don't ever question their own logic.

I love this format

This for real gon be a super weapon against my own self-doubt, negativity, n biases

The best fallacy is clearly the fallacy fallacy which gives you some breathing room on your fallacies to not completely fallacy. Excellent. Cool stuff thanks for the video

Whenever I see any sort of content on logical fallacies, they often times (more often than not) forget the Fallacy Fallacy lol. Glad to see you didn't leave it out. It's the one that sort of tempers all the rest IMO. Just because you spot someone has one or more of these logical fallacies in their argument, does not immediately negate their conclusions. They can still, ultimately have the right conclusion.

No no one would dare to pull off an argument withing the comments section 😂 love your vids!

i tried doing a lil summary sorry if it sucks ___ Ad Hominem: attacking the opponent's character, not the argument Hasty Generalization: claim based on little evidence that is too small Red Herring: misleading or distracting from relevant argument Tu QuoQue: accusing hypocrisy rather than the actual substance Slippery Slope: rejecting action based on undesirable suspected chain reaction Special Pleading: excluding certain subjects from critical criteria Loaded Question: a question that already contains an assumption False Dilemma: an issue is represented as having mutually exclusive solutions Strawman: attacking an overexaggerated representation of opposing argument Circular Reasoning: assuming the desired conclusion is true Appeal to Authority: believing something is true because an influential person does Appeal to Nature: assuming natural things are good (unstated premise is nature = good) Composition Fallacy: inferring that something that is true of a part is true of the whole Division Fallacy: inferring that something that is true of the whole is true of a part Affirming the Consequent: taking a true statement, and assuming its vice versa is automatically true Anecdotal Fallacy: drawing conclusions from personal experiences Appeal to Emotion: manipulating the other's emotions to win argument Burden of Proof Fallacy: the one who makes the claim must provide the proof, removing need is the fallacy? idk No True Scotsman: defending generalizations by excluding counters with "not pure enough" Texas Sharpshooter: looking for data to support an already drawn conclusion, rather than the opposite Suppressed Correlative: redefining mutually exclusive options so that one contains the other, making alternative impossible Personal Incredulity: presuming that whatever is true must be easy to understand or imagine Ambiguity Fallacy: unclear or vague assumptions are used in an argument Genetic Fallacy: reject/accepting an argument based on its origins rather than its content Middle-Ground Fallacy: thinking the truth is always in the middle of two opposites Affirming the Disjunct: given either/or scenario, assuming that if one outcome is true, the other is false Appeal to Tradition: ignoring evidence to change b/c something's been done for a long time Sunk Cost Fallacy: continuing with something you've invested into, even if costs outweigh benefits Appeal to Ignorance: assuming something is true/false because it's not proven false/true Continuum Fallacy: assuming two things can't be considered distinct, because numerous in-between options Equivocation: using an ambiguous term's multiple definitions in one argument Faulty Analogy: thinking that just because two things are alike in one way, they are alike in others Denying the Antecedent: inferring the inverse from an original statement False Cause: incorrectly assuming a correlation means a causation or relation Definist Fallacy: defining a term in a way that makes one's argument easier to defend Ecological Fallacy: what is true of a population must be true of an individual Etymological Fallacy: the true meaning of a word is its oldest or original meaning Quoting out of Context: a quote is taken out of its surroundings to distort intended meaning False Equivalence: two subjects are compared as equal based on flawed reasoning Historian's Fallacy: assuming that ppl in the past has same information that we do today Inflation of Conflict: exaggerating the amount of disagreement to invalidate claims Incomplete Comparison: argument using incomplete, thus irrefutable, assertions Ludic Fallacy: taking logic / uncertainty found in games and applying it to real life Moralistic Fallacy: assuming that, since X leads to unpleasant outcomes, X must be false Nirvana Fallacy: comparing realistic solution to impossible standards, thus dismissing it Proof by Assertion: proposition repeatedly asserted as true despite counters and evidence Cherry Picking: pointing to individual cases to confirm a position while ignoring any evidence that refutes it Psychologist's Fallacy: assuming that subjective experiences reflect the true nature of an event Reification Fallacy: assuming that abstract ideas are concrete, real entities Retrospective Determinism: assuming because event happened under X circumstances, than X circumstances caused event Thought Terminating Cliché: using loaded language (passing as folk wisdom) to quell cognitive dissonance Fallacy of the single cause: assuming that a simple cause led to one large outcome Appeal to the Stone: dismissing argument because it is absurd, not based on evidence Ignoratio Elenchi: presenting an argument that misses the point of the original issue at hand Circumnstantial ad Hominem: assuming that having a personal interest in a conclusion means that conclusion is wrong Tone Policing: focusing on the tone or emotion of a message, rather than its contents Association Fallacy: properties of X must also be properties of Y, since X and Y both belong in the same group Appeal to Accomplishment: assuming that something is true or false based on accomplishments of proposer Courtier's Reply: dismissing criticism by saying that arguer doesn't have the credentials to comment Appeal to Consequences: assuming that something is true or false based on if it leads to desirable outcomes Appeal to Novelty: X assumed to be superior because it is new or modern Bulverism: assuming that argument is flawed based on arguer's identity Chronological Snobbery: assuming modern ideas are superior to ancient ideas Entitled to my Opinion Fallacy: discrediting opposition by stating entitlement to false beliefs, rather than analyzing opposition Two wrongs make a right: allegation of wrongdoing countered with even more wrongdoing Vacuous Truth: assertion that is technically true, but doesn't mean anything substantial Fallacy Fallacy: when an argument contains a fallacy it must be false

i love this channel, especially how you cover alot of different topics but stay within the same simple format!

what on earth, ive just checked your channel and youve got a 100000 subscribers off 5 videos? and in like 2 weeks??? great work pal youve really got the youtube algorithm by the balls. your video format is an incredible combination of both simplicicty and complexity which makes it easy to delve into interesting topics and continue watching more, plus it helps youve got a nice voice. amazing work mate

These fallacies represent 90% of content creators who give opinions or debate topics. LoL... If only we could build a nation with folks who seak out this kind of information. Thanks for sharing!! 😊

I always touch up on this video so I don't end up looking like a moron when debating. appreciate you man

I'm a graphic designer and this is one of the best uses of Comic Sans I've ever seen. It's a font that gets a lot of hate but, as with most things, it's about how you use it. And the graphics work really well with the font.

This video is reminiscent of older YT content. It's very direct and rigorous in speech. I was able to quickly replay the bits I didn't understand several times to recap and self teach if I didn't grasp the explanation given. For what could easily underdtand, it wasn't a waste of time either. Your style of presentation is also masterful. Your infographics communicate ideas or information simply without excess visuals to distract from the salient data. Another common mistake is also death by powerpoint which you avoid unless absolutely nessecary like the ski instructor = job example. People don't need to be told to like and subscribe if the content is good enough.

Actually its so important that we recognize when there fallacies happen so that we can actually get into some honest arguments

Good video I said in a different comment "I'm gonna puke" but I was just overwhelmed by the amount and I also didn't know the fallacy fallacy so I was like "everything I know is a lie" but after watching I feel a lot better and well educated thank you sir

Whataboutism: "Responding to an argument by raising a counter-argument of a similarly topical issue that is either somewhat related or completely unrelated to the subject matter. A suggestion that a wrong isn't wrong because of some other wrong. It is often used as an excuse not to improve or solve problems with the usual goal of preserving the status quo. However, it often worsens the current situation as it inevitably lowers the standards of everyone engaging in the argument by making them numb to problems in the system, as the flaws are now considered normal, not worthy of fixing and allowed to fester." Examples: "What about this?" "Well, but what about that?" "Putin is a killer." "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think - our country's so innocent?" While similar to other fallacies in this video, due to its prevalence in modern debates and how it is distinct, I would deem it also worthy of a mention.

Brilliant video. I had to keep rewinding to listen again to the explanation or read the examples. Very informative and entertaining.

Deeper discussion, slower pace, more real-world examples if you can, thanks much-o. Really appreciate all your videos.

I didn't know TV Tropes was doing videos for indexes but I'm here for it. And how about the "ingredients you can pronounce" fallacy from Chipotle and every self-appointed nutrition expert... (Appeal to nature subtrope?)

A lot of people are talking about different fallacies, but nobody is talking about the psychologist fallacy. So few humans are able to understand the difference between objective and subjective. It is truly enlightening once you discover that every thought you think, every belief you hold, every scrap of what you define morality with is just subjective. Human experience is inherently subjective; in other words, we con only ever view objective reality through our own subjective lenses. We cannot directly know the objective. To claim that billions of other subjective realities are false and yours is special is a self-centered and ignorant viewpoint. We are all just as clueless as the other, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can move forward. Hope this random comment will help some people reach that enlightenment!

the world would be a better place if everbody had to learn these at school in every class every year

Lets be honest. We're all mainly here to learn how we can argue with others on comment sections of social media so we can "win" But reality is, we're shouldn't be learning how to argue, we should be learning how to communicate better.

Good job bro you have my sub

Thanks for the checklist, this makes my 100% fallacy speedrun more manageable