Logical Fallacies
A practical logical-fallacies reference with clear explanations, usable examples, and teaching tools.
Fallacy Detective
These Fallacy Detective pages update each week and use live headlines, political language, and public argument to show how readers can slide into fallacious interpretations. The goal is not to shout “fallacy” at every headline. It is to slow the reading process down, let visitors try the diagnosis first, notice how their political sympathies pull them toward or away from certain labels, and then reveal the most defensible fallacy lenses.
The most recent case appears first. A new case is added each week. Each case starts with a real headline, invites the reader to spot the fallacies before any labels appear, and asks the reader to notice where agreement, resentment, or tribal loyalty may be steering the diagnosis.
2026-05-26
A headline-level feature on how compressed legal and political wording can invite single-cause, false-dilemma, correlation-causation, equivocation, and cherry-picking mistakes.
This feature takes a current headline and asks a sharper question than 'Do I agree with it?' It asks what reasoning shortcuts a reader can slide into if a short headline is treated like a full explanation.
Each week, recent headlines are screened for compressed causal wording, false binaries, and other patterns that can invite overconfident reasoning. The point is not just to catch bad arguments in public. It is also to build the habit of noticing when our own political commitments make us eager to call something a fallacy or reluctant to do so.
The strongest candidates are usually short, vivid headlines that compress a legal, political, or social dispute into one apparent cause, one stark opposition, or one decisive proof claim.
A strong feature page has to distinguish between a fallacy in the headline itself, a fallacy the headline tempts readers to infer, and a fallacy that a partisan reader is simply too eager or too resistant to see because the issue already feels settled.