The meta-fallacy of applying different logical standards to different participants in a discussion, typically demanding impeccable reasoning from your opponent while allowing yourself hand-waving, gut feelings, and outright contradictions. Logical
double standards are the rhetorical equivalent of a tennis match where one player's shots must land inside the lines and the other's can land anywhere in the county. This fallacy is how someone can demand "proof" for
climate change while accepting election fraud claims based on a single Facebook post, or require their opponent to cite peer-reviewed studies while offering their own opinions as self-evident truth. The
double standard is invisible to the person wielding it, which is what makes it so effective and so infuriating.
Example: "The logical
double standards were staggering. She had to provide sources for every claim; he could say 'everyone knows' and it was accepted. She had to address every point; he could ignore hers and repeat his. When she pointed out the
double standard, he said that was just her opinion. The
standards weren't double; they were whatever allowed him to feel right."