Skills contained in this skillset:

Expand all

Jeg kan gjenkjenne dysfunksjonelle måter å argumentere på 16

Whataboutism is a diversionary tactic that attempts to deflect criticism or a counter-argument by pointing out the flaws or wrongdoings of the opponent rather than addressing the issue at hand. It involves responding to a criticism with a "What about [insert unrelated issue]?" question or statement, which shifts the focus away from the original topic and is often used to avoid accountability or deflect blame.

This fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. It can take the form of name-calling, character assassination, or any attempt to discredit the person rather than their ideas.

This occurs when someone relies on the opinion of an authority figure or expert, rather than presenting evidence or logical reasoning. While expert opinions can be valuable, they are not a substitute for sound argumentation.

Also known as begging the question, this fallacy involves using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises. Essentially, it's when someone assumes what they're trying to prove.

This fallacy presents a situation as having only two possible options when, in reality, there are more choices or nuances available. It oversimplifies complex issues.

Instead of providing rational arguments, this fallacy seeks to manipulate emotions to win an argument. It often involves using emotionally charged language or anecdotes.

This is when someone misrepresents their opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. They attack a weaker version of the argument rather than addressing the actual points made.

This occurs when someone selectively chooses evidence or data that supports their position while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. It's a form of confirmation bias.

This is a fallacy that suggests that one small step will inevitably lead to a disastrous chain of events. It often exaggerates the consequences of a particular action without providing sufficient evidence.

This fallacy asserts that something is true or good because many people believe or support it. It confuses popularity with validity.

In Latin, this means "it does not follow." It's when the conclusion of an argument doesn't logically follow from the premises. The connection between the premises and the conclusion is weak or nonexistent.

This fallacy assumes that because one event occurred after another, the first event caused the second. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

This fallacy involves introducing irrelevant information or an unrelated topic into an argument to divert attention away from the main issue. It's a tactic often used to distract from the real point.

This is a type of question that contains an assumption or an accusation within it. It can be used to trap someone into answering in a way that supports the questioner's agenda.

Arguing that something is better or more valid simply because it has been done a certain way for a long time. This ignores the possibility of progress or improvement.

Drawing a broad conclusion based on insufficient or anecdotal evidence. It involves making a sweeping statement without considering a representative sample.