False reasoning despite an appearance of truth. The argumentation may appear to be correct, but in reality is not correct at all.

EXAMPLE

In a debate

"Climate change is supposed to be a rise in temperature, but today it's very cold, so a priori there's no climate change."

In this example, we're comparing weather, which is something we consider in the short term, that can change from day to day, with climate, which is something we observe in the long term, over several decades. The argument is therefore invalid.

Saying that something is true simply because an expert or well-known person has said so. Be absolutely wary of arguments from authority, as they can be misleading, especially if they are not backed up by evidence or other arguments.

EXAMPLE

During the containment period, many people said they were right about the pandemic or the vaccine, or wrong because a particular Nobel Prize winner agreed with them.

The problem with this technique is that people evolve and change. And just because so-and-so won a Nobel Prize 40 years ago doesn't mean that everything he says is still true 40 years later.

A very common rhetorical device in the media, which consists of exaggerating an opponent's statements to make them look ridiculous.

EXAMPLE

Between 2 politicians:

P1: "I think this medicine should be banned because it carries risks, so it's safer to ban it for the time being".

P2: "But what do you mean sir ? You want to let people die by preventing them from treating themselves with this medicine, is that it? You want to let the population die?"

As Schopenhauer wrote, "Anger is weakness", and logically if you manage to remain calm in the face of an angry opponent, you appear much more reasonable, and the audience will be more receptive to your arguments.

This technique consists in attacking the form, the way in which the words are said, rather than the actual substance of the ideas.

EXAMPLE

In politics,

"To be president of the republic you have to be calm". 

(N. Sarkozy to S. Royal, 2007)

Note

Prinicpe often used in politics, but is also very effective with your brothers and sisters, although it's not very honest.

This is the stratagem a person should use as a last resort when his or her arguments are no longer sufficient to win the debate.

This stratagem consists of attacking the opponent personally, with the aim of undermining his person rather than his arguments.

This can obviously irritate the opponent and destabilize him or her, but the reason why it's risky to use this technique is that personal attacks can be rightly criticized.

EXAMPLE

"Such a nasty woman." (D. Trump to H. Clinton, Oct 2016)

1/ THE FALSE DILEMMA

• look for other options than the ones proposed.

2/ SOPHISM

• find the flaw in the reasoning, even if it is sometimes difficult to do so

3/ APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

• check whether the person using this technique has any additional evidence or arguments to back up what he or she has just said.

4/ THE SCARECROW

• stop the person by telling them that they are exaggerating what you're saying.

5/ MAKING YOUR OPPONENT ANGRY

• try to stay calm even if it's difficult.

6/ ULTIMATE STRATAGEM

• return to the subject of the debate as quickly as possible, once again trying to remain calm.