Argument from Reality

A rhetorical move where someone argues that their position must be accepted because it corresponds to reality, with "reality" functioning as a self-justifying foundation. The argument is circular: it's real because it's real. The fallacy lies in treating reality as unproblematic, as given, as something we have direct access to rather than something we interpret. Argument from Reality is dogmatism with a metaphysical accent—using the weight of "reality" to crush alternative views without engaging them.

"Your perspective is interesting, but reality is on my side." That's Argument from Reality—claiming reality as your ally, your possession, your proof. But reality doesn't take sides; interpretations do. Reality is what we're all trying to understand, not a weapon to use against each other. Argument from Reality is just argument from authority, with reality as the ultimate authority—conveniently aligned with you."

by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem

A hybrid fallacy common in political debates online where the focus shifts simultaneously to the argument's structure, the arguer's actions, and the arguer's person—all while avoiding the actual content. The classic form: "You're proving the point of this post by your very response!" The move claims that the way someone argues (structure), what they do (action), or who they are (person) actually demonstrates the truth of the opposing position. It's a triple evasion—structure, action, and person all serve as distractions from content. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it feels clever—as if you've caught someone in a performative contradiction—but it still doesn't engage what they actually said.

"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem—using my tone (action), my style (structure), and me (person) to dismiss my points without addressing them. Maybe I was angry; maybe my style was messy; maybe I'm flawed. None of that addresses whether my critique was valid. The move is clever evasion, not engagement."

by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Argument from Elections

A related fallacy where someone argues that a position must be accepted because it was supported by election results. The structure: "X won the election, therefore X's policies are correct." The fallacy lies in moving from electoral success to epistemic authority, from votes to validity. Elections confer power, not truth. Argument from Elections is a form of appeal to popularity, dressed in democratic clothing.

"Why should we accept this policy? Because the candidate who promised it won in a landslide!" That's Argument from Elections—treating electoral victory as justification. But winning doesn't make right; it just makes powerful. Arguments from elections are arguments from authority with ballots instead of credentials."

by Abzugal February 28, 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."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Circular Argument

An argument that goes nowhere. Though a person believes he or she is arguing a point, the argument does not progress because the individual provides the same point for the effect as he/she does for the cause (i.e., the effect is just the cause stated in different words). In short, what is given as the effect is already made obvious--either overtly or implicitly--by the supporting reason provided.

To say, "I didn't like that movie because it was really bad," is to provide a premise in support of the opinion that goes without saying. It goes without saying that if one does not like the movie, he/she will not believe the movie is good. Likewise, statements such as "I am Bainz, so I am drunk," "I enjoy listening to music when I study because music helps me to study," and "I wear Fant-Ho shades because they're the best shades" are equally circular in nature. A true argument would supply support that explains WHY Bainz is always drunk, HOW music helps the person's study habits, and WHAT makes Fant-Ho shades better than other brands.

Dumb people write circular arguments.

Swain stated the obvious when he made the circular argument, "I am Swain; therefore, I am a clown-bitch." I was like, duh!

by P'tainz August 18, 2013

elliotic argument

An argument that is so bad that it is instantly destroyed by everyone who encounters it. An argument that is so clearly false that the only person who could possibly take it seriously is someone who is borderline retarded. To be a true elliotic argument the argument must be defended by a deluded fool who despite his extreme inadequacies suffers from a severe case of megalomania.

have you seen this guy who calls himself The AK? His arguments are so bad that they qualify as elliotic arguments.

by jman81 August 21, 2012

Zeller Argument

The act of arguing over something false. Where under normal circumstances the Person defending the "wrong" opinion would disagree with said opinion.

Zeller: "It is completely normal to want money for story progression in an single-player Game!"
Xaver: "Stfu, I don't want to have an Zeller Argument"

by mePixel May 30, 2020