A few years ago, when my son was beginning high school and we were debating what electives he should take, I did something dangerous.

I bought a Logic curriculum for him. I knew that Rowyn already valued logical arguments–I hear him regularly chatting on Discord with his gamer friends, so I knew he took perhaps too much joy in dismantling their statements when they didn’t satisfy his logical mind, LOL. So I figured, let’s make sure he’s doing it right.

Feeding the beast? Well, maybe. 😉 But as the textbook arrived and I was flipping through it, I realized that my own education in spotting logical fallacies is sorely lacking. My husband is better at it, but me? Not so much. I had no idea what the names were for those things that frustrated me in conversation, or why sometimes something felt “off” in a response, or manipulative, but I didn’t know why.

And of course, as I learned a bit more about these fallacies, I also learned where I tend to fall into them as well. Sigh. Don’t you just hate it when you set out to learn why others are wrong and instead learn where you are? 😉 

Given how many of these I see in my own social media feed every single day, I figure either I’m not the only one who doesn’t just “get” these things intuitively…or people are doing it deliberately. Because I’m always a “give them the benefit of the doubt” kind of person, I’m assuming the first. And so…maybe you could benefit from this list too. And I know I need it!

Please note that I am using examples from BOTH sides of the political aisle; sometimes examples I’ve seen from both are provided for the same Fallacy; sometimes I alternate and will use a Conservative statement in one and the a Liberal statement in the next. Sometimes just general examples that easily apply to both. Cuz we all do these, friends!)

(This list is based on one from Grammarly, with a couple extra thrown in. They all have my take on them and, where it didn’t require too much time spent digging on my part, examples from my own social media feed.)

1. Ad Hominem

Tell: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
Example: “You’re wrong because you’re just a [label],” instead of addressing the actual claim.
Why it’s wrong: The truth of a position doesn’t depend on who says it.

2. Red Herring

Tell: Distracting from the argument by bringing up something irrelevant to the current discussion.
Example: “I think parents should have more say about school curriculum” is answered with “If Conservatives really cared about kids, they’d want to talk about gun violence in schools.”
Why it’s wrong: It sidetracks the discussion with a separate topic instead of engaging the actual issue being discussed.

3. Straw Man

Tell: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: “Schools should admit systemic racism as part of history” is met with “You want to teach kids to hate America.”
Why it’s wrong: It argues against something they didn’t actually say. Thing to remember: if you have to exaggerate someone’s argument in order to defeat it, then you haven’t defeated it.

4. Equivocation

Tell: Using a word in different ways to mislead.
Example: “Freedom” is a common one where meanings get misinterpreted in the conversation. Examples from both sides: “Freedom means people should be free to live without discrimination” is met with “Freedom doesn’t meant freedom from consequences.” Or “This government mandate on gun control overreaches individual freedom” is met with “I think our kids should have freedom to live safely.”
Why it’s wrong: The word shifts in meaning mid-argument.

5. Slippery Slope

Tell: Predicting extreme outcomes without evidence.
Example: “If we don’t deport everyone, next thing you know borders won’t exist” or “If we allow this speaker on our campus, the next stop is fascism.”
Why it’s wrong: It assumes progression without causal proof.

6. Hasty Generalization

Tell: Jumping to a broad conclusion from too little evidence.
Example: “There are three examples of this people group committing crimes, therefore they’re all criminals.”
Why it’s wrong: Too small a sample to justify the conclusion.

7. Appeal to Authority

Tell: Claiming something is true just because an authority said it.
Example: “A famous person said it — so it must be true.”
Why it’s wrong: Authorities can be wrong or irrelevant.

8. False Dilemma / False Dichotomy

Tell: Presenting only two options when more exist.
Example: “Either we deport everyone or let rapists stay” or “If we don’t ban guns our kids will be gunned down in schools.”
Why it’s wrong: It ignores the real range of possibilities.

9. Bandwagon Fallacy

Tell: Saying something is true or right because “everyone believes it.”
Example: “Everyone thinks X, so X must be true.”
Why it’s wrong: Popularity ≠ truth.

10. Appeal to Ignorance

Tell: Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or vice versa).
Example: “This regulation won’t help the economy” is met with “You don’t know it won’t, so let’s pass it.”
Why it’s wrong: Lack of evidence isn’t proof.

11. Circular Argument

Tell: Using the conclusion as the premise — no real support.
Example: “He was justified because he had to do it,” without independent evidence.
Why it’s wrong: It goes in a loop instead of reasoning.

12. Sunk Cost Fallacy

Tell: Staying committed just because you’ve invested time/effort.
Example: “I’ve already argued this position for years; changing now would be admitting defeat.”
Why it’s wrong: Past investment doesn’t justify continuing.

13. Appeal to Pity

Tell: Using emotional sympathy instead of logic.
Example: “You must agree because it’s heartbreaking.”
Why it’s wrong: Pathos can highlight stakes but not prove a point.

14. Causal Fallacy

Tell: Assuming causation just because of correlation or timing.
Example: “When X happened, Y happened, so X must have caused Y.”
Why it’s wrong: Correlation ≠ causation.

15. Appeal to Hypocrisy/Whataboutism (Tu Quoque and Tu Quoque Adjacent)

Tell: Dismissing someone’s argument by calling out hypocrisy.
Example: “You criticize this policy but your side did the same.”
Why it’s wrong: Hypocrisy doesn’t make the original argument incorrect.

16. Poisoning the Well

Tell: Using a preemptive move that makes further discussion socially unacceptable
Example: “If you agree with that, you’re not a Christian.”
Why it’s wrong: It admits no nuance in an issue and assumes that there is only one issue that defines “good.” It stops discussion rather than engaging with it.

What follows is the post I made on Facebook on January 17. I want to introduce it here a bit to clarify a few things. First, this was addressed specifically to real-life friends who defend everything Trump does and believe his “rough edges” are in fact good things. I have many friends who voted for Trump as what they perceived as the lesser of two evils, and while I am SO grateful for their perspectives too, if you do not self-identify as MAGA, then chances are good you are not the ones I was specifically speaking to. 😉 Even so, I want to share my own perspective and invite yours, because your matters–whether you were my “target audience” here or not.

Unlike the Facebook post, which got TOTALLY out of hand, I intend to moderate any comments here completely, which means things that show the commenter to be mildly-upset will be let through but I reserve the right to chime in to invite you to see a different perspective (you don’t have to agree with it, but please try to understand it, if you’re engaging), and shouting or name-calling comments will either not be approved to begin with or be deleted as soon as I see them). And if you just don’t want to comment at all, I get. If this comment sections remains a ghost-town, that’s fine. 😉

I also want to take a moment to note that this was my first (and perhaps last, LOL) viral post on social media. It got about 800K views by the time I’m posting this, with a little under 3K comments (this number includes comments on shares, not just on my post itself on my page), and over 400 shares. Way higher than anything I’d seen before. And while I know it only did that because it was dealing with political things, I am still grateful that my “once in a lifetime” viral post was on something that matters and not a cat video. 😉 (I’m not dissing cat videos. I love them.) I also want to note that I’m blown away by the number of international viewers who reached out privately and/or commented, most of whom had no idea how I ended up in their feed. But I saw people from England, Scotland, Denmark, Australia, Germany, Sweden, and New Zealand…and there were several who mentioned being not-US but whose country of origin I didn’t actually see.

Which I mention solely because they all said that this conversation–not the viewpoints, but the fact that we were having an earnest conversation–was the first thing they’d seen out of the US to give them hope that we’ll survive this current storm. That touched me. And gave me hope too.

One final note–that I’m adding some notes. Footnote style. Just things to provide you with the source to which I’m referring. If I’m bringing them up, it’s because it was part of the conversation I’ve had in years past with people who matter to me on these subjects. I’m not claiming you, particularly, claim them. Rather, I’m claiming that they’re part of what I was told. (I did not include these in the original post for the sake of length.)

~*~

Hey, MAGA friends—do you have a minute? I need to talk through some things.

The last couple nights, I’ve been lying awake, honestly upset to the point of tears, after seeing some memes and posts shared here (edited to add: these were not worried, anxious thoughts and tears. They were tears of sorrow, and this “upset” led to a burden to put words to it…and when Roseanna the Writer feels a burden to words to something, she inevitably ends up doing it in the middle of the night, LOL)¹. And I need to hear your actual thoughts so I avoid making any wrong assumptions. I want to say this clearly up front: I love you. In real life, you’re my family, my friends, my neighbors, my book-club people. You matter to me. Your viewpoints matter to me.

I usually live by “don’t talk politics, and for the love of all that’s holy, don’t argue on Facebook.” But I think we’re past the point where that works. I don’t understand some things, and I suspect you don’t fully understand my perspective either. I genuinely believe we’d all be better off if we talked—really talked. If Facebook isn’t the place, fair enough. Email me. Call me. Let’s even get dinner with the goal of having these conversations. Because they’re important.

I need to be honest: when it comes to our current political situation, I feel betrayed. Many of you are the people who raised me, who taught me how to follow Christ. You’re my people. (And for context, if you don’t know me in real life, I’m the stereotypical Conservative Christian woman—I’m a white, rural Republican from West Virginia. I hold traditional views on marriage and gender. I’ve been married 25 years. I homeschooled. I don’t drink, curse, or do drugs.)²

And I am deeply dismayed.

You taught me in the ’90s not to trust politicians without character. You taught me that a man who lies, mocks, and disgraces his office should not lead.³ You taught me to vote my conscience—which is why I didn’t vote for Trump, even back in 2016. Back then, many of you said, “He’s a baby Christian.”⁴

That was nearly a decade ago.

True new Christians grow—remember that parable about the seed and the soil? You taught me the fruits of the Spirit to watch for—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.⁵ Please help me understand: do you honestly see those fruits being modeled now? Not just by the president, but by the broader movement? I see crosses worn publicly and prayers posted online—but I also see open contempt, hatred, mockery, aggression, pride, and a startling lack of self-control.

Don’t tell me you’re a Christian with your T-shirts or jewelry. Show me you’re a Christian by your love.

Which brings me to what started all of this: how we’re talking about immigrants.

One of you shared a meme saying you voted for Trump to “take out the trash.” Please—help me understand. Are we talking about people? Because the kind of things we throw away as trash are rotten, disgusting, beyond worth. And even if you mean “unnecessary clutter,” I don’t believe you would ever look a person in the eye and tell them they’re unnecessary.

Yet we’re saying it about an entire group.

I’ve heard it said: “If they’re here legally, they’re fine. If not, they’re criminals and they’ve got to go.” But here’s the problem—the government keeps changing what ‘legal’ means. People who entered the country lawfully, under one administration’s rules, have had their status revoked by another’s executive order. Refugees. Families. People still in active legal processes with legal statuses.⁶

Are they suddenly “trash”?

I know we all agree violent criminals shouldn’t be on the streets. That’s not the debate. The issue is the use of blanket terms. It’s shifting laws. It’s a system that punishes people who followed the rules—and then calling concern about that “fake news” and “the liberal agenda.” I’m not liberal by any stretch of the imagination—and please don’t even DARE suggest I don’t know how to read and research. If you know me even a little, you know them be fightin’ words to a historical novelist. 😉

And here’s the thing: I don’t think we actually disagree on whether innocent people being brutalized is wrong. I think we agree it would be horrific—if it’s true. The question is whether we’re willing to believe uncomfortable truths, or whether we drown them out because they don’t fit our narrative. History gives us sobering examples of what happens when Christians choose the latter.

I’ll offer this about myself, since I’m asking for honesty from you. Last year, when Roe was overturned, I went looking for data to prove my side right. Instead, I found evidence that strict abortion laws increase abortions. I didn’t like it—but I had to reckon with it. I didn’t change my belief that life is sacred. I changed my conclusion about the system I thought would protect it.⁷

That’s what I’m asking for here—not a change of core values, but a willingness to examine whether the systems we support are actually producing the good we say we want.

I am not here to pick a fight. Conflict literally makes me feel sick to my stomach, and I’ve got enough of that dealing with chemo. 😉 I’m here because I believe something is broken in the unity of the Church, and I don’t think silence fixes it.

I believe we still share core principles. I believe our disagreements are about how to live them out. And I believe we owe it to each other—as Christians, as friends, as family—to talk honestly, humbly, and without name-calling or fear.

I’ve laid my heart on the table. Please tell me where I’ve misunderstood you. Please correct me where I’m wrong. Let’s start a real conversation—and see where we can go from here.

Footnotes:

¹ See my post “A Time to Speak” (https://www.roseannamwhite.com/2026/01/a-time-to-speak.html)

² To be totally accurate, this is my “historical” place, where I’m coming from, what informs and shapes my opinions. Because of what I go on to explain, I’ve undergone a lot of change. And am really just trying to disentangle my identity from ANY identity politics. Again, see the same post mentioned above.

³ I was born in 1982, so the “era” I best remember from my childhood is the Clinton era. In my particular circles, I remember many conversations about how a president should not even let himself be impeached but should rather resign if it comes down to that, to keep from disrespecting the office of President. That it didn’t matter what Clinton did for the economy, because he was not a man of character. As I approached my eighteenth year (in 2000, if you don’t feel like doing the math) when I would register to vote, I had been 100% taught to vote my conscience based not just on political issues but on the politicians. Not because any political candidate would ever be perfect (we all know that’s impossible), but because someday I will have to stand before God and answer for what my vote supported and what they did as public servants. Yeah, it’s a lot of pressure, LOL.

⁴ “James Dobson Says Paula White Led Donald Trump to Jesus Christ” (https://www.christianpost.com/news/james-dobson-says-paula-white-led-donald-trump-to-jesus-christ.html) This article was quoted as the reason many people I know in real life felt “permission” to vote for Trump.

⁵ In Matthew 7:16-20, Jesus tells us we will know believers by the fruit they produce. In Galatians 5:22-23, Paul lists that fruit.

⁶ Sharing statements from a Christian ministry devoted to refugees that a trusted friend has volunteered with in Minneapolis, Arrive Ministries. This is their Jan 20, 2026 post.

⁷ I talk a bit more in-depth about this in my post “Grappling.” https://www.roseannamwhite.com/2025/05/grappling.html