Definitions by Dumu The Void
Logical Excuse Fallacy
A fallacy where you accuse your opponent of committing logical fallacies specifically to avoid dealing with the content of their arguments. The move uses "that's a fallacy" as a conversation-ender, not a genuine critique. Instead of showing why something is fallacious and what that means, the accuser simply labels and dismisses. The fallacy lies in treating fallacy identification as refutation—as if naming the error does the work of argument. Real fallacy analysis requires showing why the fallacy matters, how it affects the argument, and what remains after it's removed. Logical Excuse Fallacy skips all that and just declares victory.
Logical Excuse Fallacy "He spent the whole debate saying 'that's a straw man,' 'that's ad hominem,' 'that's hasty generalization'—never once engaging what I actually said. That's Logical Excuse Fallacy—using fallacy names as excuses to avoid argument. Real critique engages; labeling just dismisses. The fallacies may have been real; the excuse was the point."
Logical Excuse Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026
Argumentum Ad Probationem
The classic "you are proving my point" fallacy—a form of Argumentum Ad Te where the responder claims that the opponent's response, tone, or very engagement demonstrates the truth of the original position. "You're proving my point by getting angry." "Your response proves exactly what I was saying." The move turns any engagement into evidence against you: if you respond emotionally, you're proving their point about emotionalism; if you respond calmly, you're proving their point about detachment; if you don't respond, you're proving their point about avoidance. It's a rhetorical trap with no exit—any response is reframed as confirmation. The fallacy lies in treating engagement as evidence, rather than addressing what's actually said.
Argumentum Ad Probationem "I calmly explained why I disagreed. Response: 'See? You're proving my point by being so defensive.' That's Argumentum Ad Probationem—using my engagement as evidence, not addressing my arguments. Defensive? I was calm. But even if I were defensive, that doesn't address my points. It's a trap: any response proves them right."
Argumentum Ad Probationem by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026
Argumentum Ad Accusationem
A form of Argumentum Ad Te where the focus shifts to accusing the opponent based on their argument rather than dealing with the argument's content. "You're just accusing" becomes a way of dismissing claims without engagement. The move reframes substantive critique as mere accusation, then dismisses the accusation as unworthy of response. It's a meta-dodge: instead of addressing what was said, you address the act of saying it—treating critique as attack, analysis as accusation. The fallacy lies in using the form of the response (it's an accusation) to avoid its content.
"I documented patterns of unfair treatment. Response: 'You're just accusing—that's Argumentum Ad Accusationem.' By calling it accusation, they avoid the documentation. Maybe it's accusation; maybe it's evidence. The label doesn't settle it, but it lets them feel justified in not engaging. Accusation as a magic word that makes critique disappear."
Argumentum Ad Accusationem by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026
Argument Picking
A form of fallacy picking where you select specific parts of an opponent's argument to invalidate the whole, rather than engaging point by point. The move identifies a weak point, a minor error, or a poorly chosen example and uses it to dismiss everything else—as if one flawed brick collapses the entire building. Argument Picking is selective destruction: find the weakest part, attack it relentlessly, then declare victory over the whole. The fallacy lies in treating the whole as no stronger than its weakest part, ignoring that arguments are webs, not chains. One weak strand doesn't collapse the web.
"He found one minor factual error in my twenty-point argument and declared everything invalid. That's Argument Picking—selective destruction pretending to be comprehensive critique. One mistake doesn't make everything wrong; it just makes one thing wrong. But picking lets you feel victorious without engaging the other nineteen points."
Argument Picking by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026
Logical Double Standards
A fallacy where someone applies logical standards inconsistently—accusing opponents of fallacies while committing the same ones, demanding evidence they don't provide, requiring certainty they don't practice. The classic form: accusing someone of "jumping to conclusions" while leaping to your own; crying "ad hominem" while attacking character; demanding "evidence" while ignoring counter-evidence. Logical Double Standards reveal that the invocation of logic is often strategic, not principled—logic as weapon, not tool. The double standard is the point: one rule for them, another for us.
"He accused me of hasty generalization based on three examples, then generalized about my entire argument from one comment. That's Logical Double Standards—his generalization is analysis; mine is fallacy. The standard isn't logic; it's convenience. Double standards are what happen when logic becomes a jersey you wear, not a game you play."
Logical Double Standards by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026
Impossible Conclusion Fallacy
The opposite of jumping to conclusions—accusing someone of "jumping to conclusions" or "hasty generalization" while demanding impossible standards of proof, pushing the needed conclusion into the realm of deductive certainty where none is possible. The fallacy lies in requiring conclusions to meet standards that no real-world conclusion can meet, then dismissing any conclusion that falls short. It's skepticism weaponized as impossibility: demanding mathematical proof for historical claims, controlled experiments for social phenomena, or absolute certainty for probabilistic judgments. The impossible standard ensures no conclusion can ever be reached, which is exactly the point.
"The evidence strongly suggests the policy failed. Response: 'You're jumping to conclusions—you haven't proven it with absolute certainty.' That's Impossible Conclusion Fallacy—demanding certainty where only probability exists. The standard is impossible, so the conclusion is always 'premature.' It's not about rigor; it's about never having to agree."
Impossible Conclusion Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026
De Te Agitur Fallacy
A specific form of Argumentum Ad Te where the responder claims that the argument being made is actually about the person making it—that the critique, analysis, or description applies reflexively to the speaker. "It's about you" becomes a way of deflecting criticism by turning it back on the critic. Unlike standard ad hominem (which attacks the person directly), De Te Agitur claims that the content of the argument itself describes the arguer. It's a rhetorical judo move: using the opponent's own words as a mirror, claiming they've inadvertently described themselves. The fallacy lies in assuming that describing a phenomenon means embodying it, that analysis equals confession.
"I critiqued authoritarian tendencies in modern politics. Response: 'You're just describing yourself—it's about you.' That's De Te Agitur Fallacy—using my critique as a mirror instead of engaging it. Maybe I'm describing something real; maybe not. But claiming it's 'about me' avoids addressing whether it's about anything else. It's deflection dressed as insight."
De Te Agitur Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026