By now, most of us are familiar with what logical fallacies are. If not, we’ve talked about this before. Despite all that, we clearly have to bring it up again, because with another storm of political discussion on the horizon, we really have to protect ourselves from falling into unproductive, brain-numbing conversations we’d rather not have had.

That being said, always be on the lookout for:

8. Moving the Goalposts.

What it is: Moving the goalposts is the practice of changing the standards of “proof” once the criteria has been met, so that no amount of proof is ever enough.

Why this can be problematic: Moving the goalposts is bad-faith argumentation at its worst. Not only does it prevent any meaningful discussion, in constantly shifting the standards by which some might reconsider their opinion, it quickly becomes clear that there was zero intent to allow one’s self to be convinced in the first place.

How to avoid Moving the Goalposts: Make sure to set clear standards for evidence. Once such evidence is presented, acknowledge it and address it, instead of changing the conditions.

7. The Nirvana Fallacy.

What it is: The Nirvana fallacy is the wholesale dismissal of a solution simply because it isn’t perfect. It assumes that if something isn’t a complete fix, it is worthless.

Why this can be problematic: In the real world, any solution is rarely ever perfect, more so in politics. Rejecting good but imperfect solutions stalls progress because we will always be waiting for the perfect answer that simply may never come.

How to avoid the Nirvana Fallacy: Recognize the merits in a solution instead of dismissing all of it. In an imperfect world, some progress will always trump waiting indefinitely for perfect progress.

6. Broad Generalization Fallacy.

What it is: The Broad Generalization Falllacy occurs when a sweeping statement is made about a large group based on a small sample or, worse, purely anecdotal evidence.

Why it can be problematic: It promotes stereotypes and unfair biases. In politics, it’s often used to dismiss entire groups based on the actions of a few.

How to avoid the Broad Generalization Fallacy: Avoid making absolute statements like “all” or “none.” Recognize that different people within a group can have different perspectives and behaviors. Heck, even your “mas tahimik at safe” days may not have been as quiet and safe for everyone else.

5. Burden of Proof Reversal

What it is: This fallacy shifts the responsibility of proving a claim from the person making it to the person questioning it.

Why it can be problematic: It allows people to make baseless accusations while forcing others to disprove them, which is often impossible. This tactic is common in smear campaigns. Couple that with moving the goalposts, and any earnest attempt at proving a negative becomes an exercise in futility.

How to avoid Reversing the Burden of Proof: Remember that the one making the claim has the responsibility to prove it. If someone asserts something, ask for their evidence instead of feeling obligated to refute it.

4. False Cause (Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc)

What it is: This fallacy assumes that because one event happened after another, then the first must have caused the second.

Why it can be problematic: It leads to oversimplified reasoning that does not take into consideration other factors and possible causes beyond X causing Y. For example, worldwide, crime went down from 2020 to around 2022. Was this proof that the war on (insert latest cause here) was a success? How? The crime rate drop happened worldwide, even in countries that didn’t wage the same campaign.

You know what everyone was dealing with during those years, though? A worldwide pandemic that forced people to stay indoors, thus drastically reducing opportunities for people to commit crime by default.

How to avoid False Cause: Always remember that correlation does not equal causation. When making an argument, ensure that the causal links are clear, and not merely assumed.

3. False Balance

What it is: This fallacy treats both sides of an argument as equally valid, even when one is based on facts and the other isn’t.

Why it can be problematic: It gives undue credit to blatant misinformation. In our example, a journalist has professional obligations and even an editor who has to fact check their work, and they are obliged to post a retraction when their report proves to be false. Bloggers are not held to anywhere nearly the same standard.

How to avoid False Balance: Give weight to evidence, not just sides, much less personalities. If one side clearly lacks evidence, then it cannot be given equal treatment to the side that doesn’t.

2. Gish Gallop

What it is: This fallacy overwhelms the other side with a rapid series of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy of strength. It ends up becoming next to impossible to even refute them all–much less have someone pay attention to the refutation itself.

Why it can be problematic: It makes bad arguments seem stronger by sheer volume. In any given discussion, there will always be time limits, character limits, and so forth. If you’re too busy debunking a bunch of bad-faith arguments, you not only end up likely not debunking all of them, but not even having the time to build your own case.

How to avoid the Gish Gallop: Focus on the strongest, most relevant points. If someone uses this tactic, simply ask them to focus on what they believe to be their central argument, then work your way from there. Don’t play their game.

1. False Dichotomy

What it is: This fallacy presents only two extreme options, ignoring other possibilities, making it seem like the choice exists only between these two options and nothing else.

Why it can be problematic: When you’re forced to choose between only two things when the range of choices is really far more than just those two, you end up with an all-or-nothing argument that often misses the reality of the situation. Worse, this type of argument tends to justify even the most objectionable of solutions, even if the extreme outcome being avoided isn’t actually likely to happen in reality.

How to avoid False Dichotomies: Recognize that most issues have more than just two sides. Avoid framing arguments as “either-or” when there are usually multiple perspectives to consider.

These aren’t the only logical fallacies keyboard warriors are guilty of! Read more here: