Nothing silences a liberal mid-fallacy like pointing out exactly which officially recognized fallacy (bogus logic/BS diversionary tactic) they are in the process of using…preferably by its original Latin name.
Here are the top 10 examples:
10) Ad Populum: This many people agree with me, therefore I must be right.
Thinking Adult: Actually, being elected doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the Constitution, or that your time-disproven ideas are justified or necessary.
9) Non-Sequitur: Using logic that simply does not follow.
Liberal: Since criminals keep committing gun crimes, law-abiding citizens (the only people who follow gun laws) must be disarmed.
Thinking Adult: Disarming victims for their assailants in no way reduces crime. It just tramples the Constitution and enslaves people to the whims of nanny state tyrants.
8) Straw Man: Distorting someone’s argument into something ridiculously easy to knock down.
Liberal: If you offer compromise-after-compromise to avoid endless debt and to delay Obama’s disastrous, Constitution-shredding health care takeover (as Democrats reject every offer to invent a fraudulent crisis out of thin air), then you are a terrorist holding the entire country hostage just because you aren’t getting everything you want. This is literally what liberals argued (with the help of relentless propaganda from our obscenely biased DNC ‘news media’).
Thinking Adult: That’s a “straw man” fallacy. Preferring fiscal sanity, actual compromise, and the rule of law is called checks and balances, or representative government. Disagreement only seems like anarchy and terrorism to tyrannical despots.
7) Ad Nauseum: This argument is valid because I keep repeating it.
Liberal: Incessantly twisting everything Mitt Romney says to paint him as some kind of pathological liar (from Barack ‘You Can Keep Your Plan’ Obama—the guy who falsely promised not one dime of tax hikes on those making less than $250,000) eventually will make him a liar.
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad nauseum” fallacy.
**See also the media’s relentless “repeat-it-until-it’s-accepted” smear campaigns against the Tea Parties, Fox News, the war in Iraq, Sarah Palin, the NRA, Ted Cruz, George Zimmerman, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and anyone else who gets in the way of Democrat power**
6) Ad misericordiam: This argument must be valid because there is suffering.
Liberal: We feel sorry for illegal immigrants (future Democrat voters), therefore we should reward them for breaking into our country by adding 15 million foreign criminals to our already bankrupt welfare system, so they can further overrun our school systems, crowd our prisons, bottom out our wages, and march down our streets with their flags, demanding that we speak their language.
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad misericordiam” fallacy. You arbitrarily choosing to feel sorry for those who despise and exploit our country in no way obligates anyone to reward or legitimize their endless crimes and abuses.
5) Ad logicam: This one piece of evidence isn’t valid, therefore the entire argument it supported must also be invalid.
Liberal: CBS was duped into interviewing a fraudulent Benghazi witness, therefore any concern about Democrats abandoning four Americans to be savagely tortured to death in the streets by Islamic lunatics while lying about it and covering it up at every turn is no longer legitimate (Media Matters).
4) Ad antiquitatem: This is the way things are done/have been done for a long time, therefore continuing to do them this way must be valid.
Liberal: Obamacare is the “law of the land,” therefore it must be accepted.
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad antiquatatem” fallacy. Just because a law has been passed doesn’t mean it is valid or should be followed, and in no way implies that it should not be overturned, repealed or defunded.
**Liberals also use the reverse of this fallacy to argue, for instance, that the Constitution is obsolete, as if separation of powers, checks and balances and basic rights and liberties somehow no longer apply.**
3) Ad verecundiam: This important person or expert agrees with me, therefore I must be right.
Liberal: Global warming is a legitimate crisis warranting massive government intervention into every aspect of our lives (what liberals just so happened to be seeking anyway) because there is a “scientific consensus” (which is liberal-speak for widespread disagreement).
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad verecundiam” fallacy (as well as an “ad populum” fallacy: this many people agree with me, therefore I must be right). Just because someone who is important or smart agrees with you doesn’t mean you are right. Defend your own arguments with your own reasoning or don’t make them.
**The use of this fallacy is often accompanied by the ad hominem fallacy of smearing the motives of any scientist who reaches a different conclusion. Experts who question the left’s absurd scare-mongering war on science are relentlessly vilified as agenda-driven right-wing fanatics or as having been paid off by “Big Oil”…even though it is the alarmists themselves who have been repeatedly caught doctoring results, falsifying data and misinforming the public**
2) Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc: Two things happened at once, therefore one must have caused the other.
Liberal: Bill Clinton was in office while things were good, therefore the tech boom that created the prosperity is somehow his doing and it does not matter that his policies eventually caused 9/11 and destroyed the economy. Additionally, George Bush was in office when the Democrat policies he tried to stop destroyed the economy, therefore, Bush destroyed the economy.
It is the fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation.
Thinking Adult: That’s a “cum hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Just because two things happen at once doesn’t mean one caused the other. Show me how Bill Clinton’s policies had anything to do with the prosperity, how they didn’t cause 9/11 and destroy the economy, and how Bush is responsible for someone else’s policies, which he vehemently opposed.
**See also the interrogation policies Obama opposed that led us to bin Laden, and the success of “The Surge” in Iraq, which Obama also opposed, but took credit for**
1) Ad hominem: Responding to an argument with insults and smears against one’s motives.
Liberal: You disagreed with Obama’s disastrous policies, therefore you must be racist. And you objected to limitless, taxpayer-funded abortions and contraceptives, therefore you are waging a “war on women.”
(2 + 2 = You’re ugly)
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad hominem” fallacy. Name-calling and smears are not valid logic. Refute the point or don’t.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” —Socrates
**The exhaustively over-used race card tactic also qualifies as another fallacy called the “red herring,” in which you respond to an argument by introducing something completely irrelevant to divert attention. Liberals like to cite accusations of communism in the 1950s as an example of this (even though virtually everything Sen. Joseph McCarthy claimed was eventually vindicated), but never being able to disagree with Democrats without being smeared as a racist is a far more accurate example**
There are many, many more examples of logical fallacies that liberals regularly use to silence debates they cannot legitimately win. They are easy to learn and devastating to use in an argument. And they really capture what emotional, adolescent hysterics liberals are.