DOCSLIB.ORG

Propaganda Techniques

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Propaganda Techniques Adapted from Wikipedia Ad hominem ( “to the person”) A Lan phrase which has come to mean aacking your opponent, as opposed to aacking their arguments. Ex. "Your fashion opinion isn't valid; you can't even afford new shoes." Ad nauseam (“to the point of nausea”) or Repe==on This argument approach uses =reless repe==on of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough =mes, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator. Ex. Appeal to authority Appeals to authority; cite prominent figures to support a posi=on, idea, argument, or course of ac=on. Ex. “Even the President has smoked pot!” Appeal to fear Appeals to fear seek to build support by ins=lling anxie=es and panic in the general populaon. Ex. Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore N. Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the exterminaon of the German people. Appeal to prejudice • Using loaded or emo=ve terms to aach value or moral goodness to believing the proposion. • Ex: "Any hard-working taxpayer would have to agree that those who do not work, and who do not support the community do not deserve the community's support through social assistance." Bandwagon Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals aempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of ac=on that "everyone else is taking”. Black-and-White fallacy • Presen=ng only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the be?er choice. • Ex. "You are either with us, or you are with the enemy" Beau=ful people • The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts arac=ve, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. • This is more used in adver=sing for products, instead of poli=cal reasons Big Lie • The repeated ar=culaon of a complex of events that jus=fy subsequent ac=on. The descrip=ons of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizaons merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate percep=on of the underlying events. Ex. AZer World War I the German “Stab in the back” explanaon of the cause of their defeat became a jus=ficaon for Nazi re-militarizaon and revanchist aggression. Cliché An expression, idea, or element of an ar=s=c work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, especially when at some earlier =me it was considered meaningful or novel. Ex. “We were thick as thieves” “Winning is everything” “When push came to shove…” Common man • The "'plain folks'" or "common man" approach aempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's posi=ons reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicang in the common manner and style of the target audience. • Ex: “Given that the country has li?le money during this recession, we should stop paying unemployment benefits to those who do not work, because that is like maxing out all your credit cards during a =ght period, when you should be =ghtening your belt." Demonizing the enemy • Making individuals from the opposing naon, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman. Direct order This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what ac=ons to take, eliminang any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. • Ex.The Uncle Sam "I want you" image is an example of this technique. Euphoria • The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. • Ex. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or moun=ng a military parade with marching bands and patrio=c messages. Disinformaon The creaon or dele=on of informaon from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the ac=ons of a person or organizaon, including outright forgery of photographs, mo=on pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents. Flag-waving An aempt to jus=fy an ac=on on the grounds that doing so will make one more patrio=c, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patrio=sm which this technique aempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or en=rely omit one's capability for raonal examinaon of the maer in queson. Gli?ering generali=es Gli?ering generali=es are emo=onally appealing words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis. Ex: the campaign slogan "Ford has a be?er idea!" Guilt by associaon or Labeling / Stereotyping • By creang a 'label' or 'category' or 'fac=on' of a populaon, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can upliZ or defame the Mark without actually incurring legal-defamaon. • Ex: "Liberal" is a negave label intended to diminish the perceived credibility of a par=cular Mark. By taking a displeasing argument presented by a Mark, the propagandist can quote that person, and then aack 'liberals' in an aempt to both (1) create a poli=cal bale-ax of unaccountable aggression and (2) diminish the quality of the Mark Half-truth • A half-truth is a decep=ve statement which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may u=lize some decep=ve element, such as improper punctuaon, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade blame or misrepresent the truth. • Ex: "You should not trust Peter with your children. I once saw him smack a child with his open hand." In this example the statement could be true, but Peter may have slapped the child on the back because he was choking. Inten=onal vagueness • Generali=es are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretaons. The inten=on is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or aemp=ng to determine their reasonableness or applicaon. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretaons rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and applicaon may s=ll be considered. Obtain disapproval or Reduc=o ad Hitlerum • trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. • Ex. “Having police at demonstraons is just like Nazism.” Oversimplificaon • Favorable generali=es are used to provide simple answers to complex social, poli=cal, economic, or military problems. • Ex. “School shoo=ngs are clearly caused by playing violent video games.” Quotes out of Context • Selec=ve edi=ng of quotes which can change meanings. Poli=cal documentaries designed to discredit an opponent or an opposing poli=cal viewpoint oZen make use of this technique. • Ex: "I'm not concerned about the very poor." (Mi? Romney interview with Soledad O'Brien on CNN, Feb. 1, 2012) Name-calling • Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negave opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. • “Barack Obama is a socialist.” Red herring • Presen=ng data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument. Tes=monial Tes=monials are quotaons, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, ac=on, program, or personality. The reputaon or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. Transfer or Associaon • this is a technique of projec=ng posi=ve or negave quali=es (praise or blame) of a person, en=ty, object, or value (an individual, group, organizaon, naon, patrio=sm, etc.) to another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. .
Recommended publications
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center

    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center

    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
  • Couch's “Physical Alteration” Fallacy: Its Origins And

    Couch's “Physical Alteration” Fallacy: Its Origins And

    COUCH’S “PHYSICAL ALTERATION” FALLACY: ITS ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES Richard P. Lewis,∗ Lorelie S. Masters,∗∗ Scott D. Greenspan*** & Chris Kozak∗∗∗∗ I. INTRODUCTION Look at virtually any Covid-19 case favoring an insurer, and you will find a citation to Section 148:46 of Couch on Insurance.1 It is virtually ubiquitous: courts siding with insurers cite Couch as restating a “widely held rule” on the meaning of “physical loss or damage”—words typically in the trigger for property-insurance coverage, including business- income coverage. It has been cited, ad nauseam, as evidence of a general consensus that all property-insurance claims require some “distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration of the property.”2 Indeed, some pro-insurer decisions substitute a citation to this section for an actual analysis of the specific language before the court. Couch is generally recognized as a significant insurance treatise, and courts have cited it for almost a century.3 That ∗ Partner, ReedSmith LLP, New York. ∗∗ Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Washington D.C. *** Senior Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York. ∗∗∗∗ Associate, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, LLP, Indianapolis. 1 10A STEVEN PLITT, ET AL., COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D § 148:46. As shown below, some courts quote Couch itself, while others cite cases citing Couch and merely intone the “distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration” language without citing Couch itself. Couch First and Couch Second were published in hardback books (with pocket parts), in 1929 and 1959 respectively. As explained below (infra n.5), Couch 3d, a looseleaf, was first published in 1995.. 2 Id. (emphasis added); Oral Surgeons, P.C.
  • Fallacies in Reasoning

    Fallacies in Reasoning

    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
  • Fallacies There Are Many Types of Fallacies

    Fallacies There Are Many Types of Fallacies

    Fallacies There are many types of fallacies. This list contains some of the more common fallacies that you’ll find in all kinds of arguments. Fallacies don’t tell you whether an argument’s conclusion is true or false; they simply don’t give you good reasons to believe that the conclusion is true. An argument based on only fallacies doesn’t contain good evidence. Come up with your own example of each fallacy. Fallacy Explanation Example Personal Attack Attacking an opponent instead of The senator is a self-serving (also known as Ad presenting an argument about politician; therfore, her position Hominem) an idea on this issue is wrong. Your Example Bad Motive Stating that the opponent is The senator has an investment based or has a personal motive in solar panels, so this legislation to take one side; that doesn’t for regulating solar panels is bad. address the logical argument Your Example Two Wrongs Saying one wrong action is okay The senator may have taken because of another wrong action money from large oil companies, but dozens of other senators have also. Your Example Straw Man Creating a fake argument for All home schooling laws give the other side that’s easy to tear away free diplomas for no work down and with no regulation; they should be eliminated. Your Example Learn more with GED Academy. | www.passGED.com Emotional Appeal Using emotion instead of We must fund this school district reasons and evidence to make bond if we care about our an argument children. Your Example Appeal to Fear Using the audience’s fear to try We must pass this law to to make them agree with the make prison sentences longer; claim otherwise your family might be attacked by criminals.
  • Scientific Method DRAFT

    Scientific Method DRAFT

    SCIENTIFIC METHOD John Staddon DRAFT Scientific Method DRAFT CONTENTS Preface 3 Chapter 1: Basic Science: Induction 6 Chapter 2: Experiment 21 Chapter 3: Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing 31 Chapter 4: Social Science: Psychology 51 Chapter 5: Social Science: Economics 67 Chapter 6: Behavioral Economics 84 Chapter 7: ‘Efficient’ markets 105 Chapter 8: Summing up 124 Acknowledgements 131 2 Scientific Method DRAFT Preface The most profound ideas cannot be understood except though the medium of examples. Plato, Philebus Most people assume that science can answer every question. Well, not every , perhaps, but every question except matters of faith or morals – although a few atheistical fundamentalists would include those things as well. How many people are killed or hurt by secondhand tobacco smoke each year? How should you discipline your children? What is the best diet? The questions are important and confident answers are forthcoming from experts. The confidence is often unjustified. There are limits to science, both practical and ethical. But for many social and biomedical questions, demand for simple answers tends to silence reservations. Flawed and even fallacious claims meet a need and get wide circulation. “Don’t know” doesn’t get a look in! When conclusive science is lacking, other influences take up the slack: faith, politics, suspicion of authority. Even when the facts are clear, many will ignore them if the issue is an emotional one – fear for their children’s safety, for example. The anti-vaccine crusade launched in a discredited study by British doctor Andrew Wakefield in 1998 is still alive in 2017, partly because most people do not understand the methods of science and no longer trust experts.
  • Warnings, Disclaimers, and Literary Theory

    Warnings, Disclaimers, and Literary Theory

    Reading the Product: Warnings, Disclaimers, and Literary Theory Laura A. Heymann* I. INTRODUCTION Few television commercials for alcohol end with the protagonist slumped unconscious on the couch, falling off a bar stool, or driving a car into a telephone pole. To the contrary, as many of us have experienced, advertising writes a very different narrative: that purchase and consumption of the advertised beverage will make one more attractive, expand one's social circle, and yield unbridled happiness. It is a story that, the advertiser hopes, will inspire consumers to choose its beverage during the next trip to the store; in this vein, the true protagonist of the commercial is the brand. Marketing scholars and, to a lesser extent, trademark scholars have increasingly viewed advertising and branding through the lens of literary theory, recognizing that consumers interpret communications about a product using many of the same tools that they use to interpret other kinds of texts.1 But this lens has not been similarly focused on an important counternarrative: the warning or disclaimer (such as "Caution: This product may contain nuts" on a candy bar or "Not authorized by * Associate Professor of Law, College of William & Mary - Marshall-Wythe School of Law. Many thanks to Jessica Silbey and the participants in the "Reasoning from Literature" panel at the 2010 AALS Annual Meeting, where this work was first presented. Many thanks also to Peter Alces, Mark Badger, Barton Beebe, Deborah Gerhardt, and Lisa Ramsey for helpful comments; to the staff of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities for their very thoughtful and perceptive edits; and to Brad Bartels and Katharine Kruk Spindler for research assistance.
  • The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies

    The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies

    The Thinker’s Guide to FALLACIES The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation RICHARD PAUL and LINDA ELDER ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London 04 Fallacies TG 12.2012.indd 1 8/29/19 12:09 PM To understand the human mind, understand self-deception. Anon The word ‘fallacy’ derives from two Latin words, fallax (“deceptive”) and fallere (“to deceive”). This is an important concept in human life because much human thinking deceives itself while deceiving others. The human mind has no natural guide to the truth, nor does it naturally love the truth. What the human mind loves is itself, what serves it, what flatters it, what gives it what it wants, and what strikes down and destroys whatever “threatens” it. The study of fallacies can be pursued in at least two different ways. It can be approached traditionally: in which case one defines, explains, and exemplifies ways in which unsound arguments can be made to appear sound. Or it can be approached deeply, in which case one relates the construction of fallacies to the pursuit of human interests and irrational desires. Using the first approach, students gain little by memorizing the names and definitions of fallacies. They soon forget them. Their minds are left largely untouched and therefore unmoved. On the other hand, the second approach makes possible the acquisition of lifelong insights into how the mind – every mind – uses unsound arguments and intellectual “tricks” to further its ends. When we look closely at human decisions and human behavior, we can easily see that what counts in human life is not who is right, but who is winning.
  • Fine-Tuned Neural Models for Propaganda Detection at the Sentence and Fragment Levels

    Fine-Tuned Neural Models for Propaganda Detection at the Sentence and Fragment Levels

    Fine-Tuned Neural Models for Propaganda Detection at the Sentence and Fragment levels Tariq Alhindiy Jonas Pfeiffer∗ Smaranda Muresanyz yDepartment of Computer Science, Columbia University zData Science Institute, Columbia University ∗Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab, Technische Universitat Darmstadt ftariq.a, [email protected] [email protected] Abstract pressed in a text fragment together with the be- ginning and the end of that text fragment. This This paper presents the CUNLP submission task is evaluated based on the prediction of the for the NLP4IF 2019 shared-task on Fine- type of propaganda technique and the intersec- Grained Propaganda Detection. Our system finished 5th out of 26 teams on the sentence- tion between the gold and the predicted spans. level classification task and 5th out of 11 teams The details to the evaluation measure used for the on the fragment-level classification task based FLC task are explained in Da San Martino et al. on our scores on the blind test set. We present (2019a). Both sub-tasks were automatically eval- our models, a discussion of our ablation stud- uated on a unified development set. The system ies and experiments, and an analysis of our performance was centrally assessed without dis- performance on all eighteen propaganda tech- tributing the gold labels, however allowing for an niques present in the corpus of the shared task. unlimited number of submissions. The final per- 1 Introduction formance on the test set was similarly evaluated, with the difference that the feedback was given Propaganda aims at influencing a target audience only after the submission was closed, simultane- with a specific group agenda using faulty reason- ously concluding the shared-task.
  • The Field of Logical Reasoning

    The Field of Logical Reasoning

    The Field of Logical Reasoning: (& The back 40 of Bad Arguments) Adapted from: An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments: Learn the lost art of making sense by Ali Almossawi *Not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only source on this topic… Disclaimer This is not the only (or even best) approach to thinking, examining, analyzing creating policy, positions or arguments. “Logic no more explains how we think than grammar explains how we speak.” M. Minsky Other Ways… • Logical Reasoning comes from Age-Old disciplines/practices of REASON. • But REASON is only ONE human characteristic • Other methods/processes are drawn from the strengths of other characteristics Other Human Characteristics: • John Ralston Saul (Unconscious Civilization, 1995) lists SIX Human Characteristics • They are (alphabetically, so as not to create a hierarchy): • Common Sense • Intuition • Creativity • Memory • Ethics • Reason Reason is not Superior • While this presentation focuses on the practices of REASON, it is necessary to actively engage our collective notions rooted in: • Common Sense (everyday understandings) • Creativity (new, novel approaches) • Ethics (relative moral high-ground) • Intuition (gut instinct) • Memory (history, stories) …in order to have a holistic/inclusive approach to reasonable doubt and public participation. However: • Given the west’s weakness for Reason and the relative dominance of Reason in public policy, we need to equip ourselves and understand its use and misuse. • Enter: The Field of Logical Reasoning vs. Logical Fallacy Appeal to Hypocrisy Defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. What’s a Logical Fallacy? • ALL logical fallacies are a form of Non- Sequitur • Non sequitur, in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
  • Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures

    Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures

    ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES COURSE SYLLABUS PHILOSOPHY 201 LOGICAL REASONING (PHL 201) (Revised 10/20/04 – Dr. Daniel Keller.) I. Faculty Listing: PHL 201: Logical Reasoning (3 credit hours) II. Description: To satisfactorily complete the course, a student must earn a grade of “C.” The course is designed to help students assess information and arguments and to improve their ability to reason in a clear and logical way. The course concentrates specifically on helping students learn some of the various uses of languages, understand how different kinds of inferences are drawn, and learn to recognize fallacies of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance. III. Purpose: Many students do not reason soundly and do not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Hence, the aim of this course is to give students experience in learning to recognize and evaluate arguments; it also aims at teaching them to construct arguments that are reasonable and defensible. It is designed as a basic course to improve the reasoning skills of students. After completing this course successfully, students should show improvements in reading comprehension, writing, and test- taking skills. IV. Course Objectives: 1. Comprehend concepts 1-9 on the attached list. a) Define each concept b) Identify the meaning of each concept as it applies to logic. 2. Comprehend how these concepts function in logical reasoning. a) Given examples from the text of each concept, correctly identify the concept. b) Given new examples of each concept, correctly identify the concept. 3. Comprehend concepts 10-16 on the attached list. a) Define the concepts b) Identify the meaning of the concept as it applies to logic.
  • Fallacy: a Defect in an Argument That Arises from a Mistake in Reasoning Or the Creation of an Illusion That Makes a Bad Argument Appear Good

    Fallacy: a Defect in an Argument That Arises from a Mistake in Reasoning Or the Creation of an Illusion That Makes a Bad Argument Appear Good

    Fallacy: A defect in an argument that arises from a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. There are two kinds of fallacy: • Formal fallacy: Detectable by analyzing the form of an argument • Informal fallacy: Detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument Fallacies of Relevance: The premises are not relevant to the conclusion: • Appeal to force: Arguer threatens the reader/ listener. • Appeal to pity: Arguer elicits pity from the reader/ listener. • Appeal to the people (Ad Populum): Arguer incites a mob mentality ( direct form) or appeals to our desire for security, love, or respect ( indirect form). This fallacy includes appeal to fear, the bandwagon argument, appeal to vanity, appeal to snobbery, and appeal to tradition. • Argument against the person (Ad hominems): -Arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing the opponent ( ad hominem abusive) – Presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or she does ( ad hominen circumstantial), or by – Presenting the opponent as a hypocrite ( tu quoque). For ad hominem to occur, there must be two arguers. • Accident: A general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. • Straw man: Arguer distorts an opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted argument. N ote: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers. • Missing the point: Arguer draws a conclusion different from the one supported by the premises. N ote: Do not cite this fallacy if another fallacy fits. • Red herring: Arguer leads the reader/ listener off the track. Fallacies of Weak Induction: The premises may be relevant to the conclusion, but they supply insufficient support for the conclusion: • Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites an untrustworthy authority.
  • Logical Fallacies: a Beginner’S Guide Which Logical Fallacy Would Be Your Favorite Pick from the List Below?

    Logical Fallacies: a Beginner’S Guide Which Logical Fallacy Would Be Your Favorite Pick from the List Below?

    Logical Fallacies: A Beginner’s Guide Which logical fallacy would be your favorite pick from the list below? Ad Hominem Attack: This is the best logical Appeal To Novelty: The Appeal to fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your you’re an idiot. crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best. Appeal To Emotion: See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad Appeal To Numbers: Millions think that this leaving and refusing to support us, and me fallacy is the best, so clearly it is. with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to Appeal to Pity: If you don't agree that get proper schooling. So really, if you look Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my how it will hurt the feelings of me and the fallacy here is the best. others who like it! Appeal To False Authority: Your logical Appeal To Tradition: We've used Appeal to fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this wrong? one is better. Argumentum Ad Nauseam: Argumentum Appeal to Fear: If you don't accept Appeal ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy. to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.