User:TheAwesomeMinecrafter/sandbox

1. Ad Hominem
Oh, man! Politicians love to use this one. Ad Hominem is Latin for "to the man" and is a fallacy attacking the opponent's character or motives. This is an irrelevant point to an argument. Here is an example: One guy says: "I think capital punishment is wrong. My friend said he thought it was cruel and mean." The other dude says: "But he was in jail one point in his life. I don't think we can trust his opinion." This is saying his viewpoint is wrong just because he is a formal criminal.

This fallacy is not being used when the person is just questioning whether the other is lying. Here is an example: A prosecuting attorney says, "I don't think your client is telling the truth. He has lied many times and it would't surprise me if he is this time."

Ad Hominem is only being used when the person is attacking another's character or motives.

2. Straw Man
Another one used by politicians. This one exaggerates another's position making it easier to refute. There is one that I have noticed and pointed out to find that it is this fallacy. This is called a straw man because it distracts the issue from one argument and creates a weaker one to knock down. Here is an example that was recently used as of 2019. Saying "Donald Trump is tear-gassing children" would be a straw man fallacy because what's really happening is the parents are holding them up as shields and illegally coming in. Here is another example: A mother says to her child, "You ate that entire pie! You just earned yourself a 100-minute timeout!" The child says, "But you're putting me in prison. You don't have the right to do that." The son is committing the straw man fallacy. The mom just gave him a 100-minute timeout for eating an entire pie. The mom had every right to do that.

3. The Domino Fallacy
This one can be easy to spot. This one also assumes that if we take one step is taken, nothing will stop us from taking a series of steps. You can take a logical conclusion to its premise to spot this fallacy. It is also being used when the first step was already taken. Here is an example: "We can't let the government count population. Soon enough after that, they'll be asking for your net worth, and it won't stop there! After that, it'll be your credit card number, and then your Social Security number, then every nook and cranny of your identity!" You may be is hysterical laughter at how ridiculous that argument was. That doesn't have enough proof that population count is wrong. The government needs it to give info to books such as Almanac (think of any year), etc. The person making that argument committed the domino fallacy. Here is another example: "Mom, you can't go to Maurice's. After that, it'll be Macy's, then Meijer, then we'll spend 12 hours shopping."