Relevance Fallacies

Dismisses a claim by insulting the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

Attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument.

Treats a claim as true solely because an authority or expert said so.

Argues a claim is true or false based on desirable or undesirable outcomes.

Misrepresents an argument so it is easier to attack.

Introduces an irrelevant point to divert attention from the issue.

Flatters the audience or decision maker to win approval instead of providing reasons.

Claims something is good or true because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural.

Argues something is better or truer because it is new or innovative.

Mocks a claim to make it seem absurd instead of addressing its merits.

Leverages resentment or bitterness to win agreement rather than reasoned support.

Claims something is correct or better because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Rejects a criticism or claim by accusing the speaker of behaving inconsistently, instead of addressing the argument.

Discredits a claim or person by linking them to an unpopular group or individual, rather than addressing the argument.

Responds to a different issue than the one raised, leaving the original question unanswered.

Argues that because something ought to be a certain way, it therefore is that way.

Infers an ‘ought’ directly from an ‘is’, assuming what is natural defines what is morally right.

Preemptively discredits a person or source so that their future claims are rejected without consideration.

Overloads a discussion with tangents or detail to obscure weakness in the main argument.

Judges a claim true or false based solely on its source or origin rather than its merits.

Assumes that what is true of parts must be true of the whole.

Assumes what is true of a whole must be true of each part.