Technique Glossary

Attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

Presenting an initial piece of information (the anchor) that disproportionately influences how subsequent information is interpreted.

Using personal stories or individual cases as proof of a general claim, when systematic evidence would be more appropriate.

Using an authority figure's opinion as evidence, especially when that authority has no relevant expertise in the topic being discussed.

Using emotional stories, imagery, or language to persuade rather than presenting logical arguments or evidence.

Arguing that something is good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural, without evidence that naturalness determines quality or safety.

Judging the likelihood or importance of something based on how easily examples come to mind, often influenced by media coverage rather than actual frequency.

Arguing that something is true or good because many people believe it or do it.

Selecting only the data points or studies that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Using the conclusion as a premise — the argument assumes what it's trying to prove.

The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Presenting only two options when more alternatives exist, forcing the reader into a false either/or choice.

Treating two things as comparable or equally valid when they differ significantly in evidence, scale, or credibility.

Overwhelming an opponent or reader with a rapid succession of many arguments, regardless of their accuracy, making it impossible to address each one.

Drawing broad conclusions from a small, unrepresentative sample of evidence.

Using words with strong emotional connotations to influence the reader's feelings about a topic before they can evaluate the argument rationally.

Making a bold, controversial claim (the bailey) but retreating to a more modest, easily defensible claim (the motte) when challenged.

Changing the criteria for proof or success after the original criteria have been met, making it impossible to ever satisfy the argument.

Leaving out crucial background information, historical context, or qualifying details that would change how the reader interprets a claim.

Reducing a complex issue to an overly simple explanation, ignoring important nuances, exceptions, and complicating factors.

Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue being discussed.

Presenting information in a way that emphasises certain aspects while downplaying others, shaping how the reader interprets the facts without explicitly lying.

Arguing that one event will inevitably lead to a chain of increasingly extreme consequences, without demonstrating that each step necessarily follows.

Presenting the strongest possible version of an opposing argument before responding to it — the opposite of a straw man.

Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack, then refuting the distorted version rather than the actual position.

Drawing conclusions from visible successes while ignoring the much larger number of failures that are not visible.

Deflecting criticism by pointing out that someone else is guilty of the same or a different offence, rather than addressing the substance of the criticism. Also known as Tu Quoque.