🌐
Paraphrase Tool
paraphrasetool.com › checkers › logical-fallacy
Logical Fallacy Checker | AI logical fallacy Content Checker - Free & Fast
Our advanced logical fallacy content checker helps you enhance content quality. Analyze and improve your content instantly with professional accuracy. Free online tool with no signup required.
🌐
Chaoticshiny
chaoticshiny.com › fallacygen.php
Chaotic Shiny - Logical Fallacy Generator
Home Random Generator Culture Alphabet ... Writing Exercise Silly Academic Field Bizarre Alchemy Cliché Fantasy Plot Code Phrase Conspiracy Country Song Fallacy Good Idea Paranormal Romance Political Buzzword RPG Drinking Game Whitewolf Game Joe's: Dice & More Tools List Gen Builder ...
Discussions

Found a new study tool aka Logical Fallacy Detector.
Oh this is great! More on reddit.com
🌐 r/exjw
60
161
December 19, 2023
I made a website to learn logical fallacies, explained like you're a 5, 15, and 25 year old.
This is cool. What it really needs for engagement is to have each fallacy linkable to it's own page, and have the embed media the card itself. You'll get tons of traction on twitter when people can just link that as a response to someone being a dumbass - the new [ CITATION NEEDED ]. More on reddit.com
🌐 r/webdev
103
334
March 16, 2024
Is the “watch-maker argument” a logical fallacy?
I think we need to go deeper in order to avoid the problems that may arise from this logic. Not sure if it’s a fallacy, I think it’s just not developed enough. We can try to develop it. The ones who make shoes and clothes also were created. One can say their parents gave birth to them. You can go back millennia from parent to child, from human to earth, from earth to solar system, from solar system to local group of stars, from stars to galaxies from galaxies to universe. You can keep going back till you show that everything that has had a beginning, was a result of a prior thing having a beginning. Then you say that the Creator is the One who made that (when debating with an atheist you should say “the Creator” because they themselves don’t understand what the Creator is the only One worthy of all worship yet). They will then try to apply your previous logic to the Creator, but it doesn’t apply to the Creator because the whole chain we made prior was time dependent, and time doesn’t exist if there is no motion of matter or space in which that motion can occur. Space and matter, and thus time itself, was made by the Creator as we just said. Thus, the Creator is outside the confines of time, having no beginning and no end- He is Eternal. This may allude to two of the names of Allah SWT: Al-Awwal and Al-Aakhir. This agrees with the idea that you can’t apply the same rules of creation to the Creator. Everything in creation is a combination of other creations (atoms are creation, and the rearrangement and motion of atoms leads to other creations). However, the Creator can’t be thought of in the same way because He doesn’t exist within the creation (which He made) and is not subject to its laws (which He made in the first place). So yeah I think the whole watch maker argument is getting somewhere, but we need to just develop it further. Allah SWT knows best. If I have said something wrong, please correct me. More on reddit.com
🌐 r/islam
29
9
May 8, 2020
Am I missing something with the "appeal to nature fallacy"?
Welcome to r/askphilosophy . Please read our rules before commenting and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com
🌐 r/askphilosophy
72
62
August 31, 2021
🌐
Your Logical Fallacy Is
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
Rollover the icons above and click for examples. If you see someone committing a fallacy, link them to it e.g. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman · Get a deck of these pretty great high quality cards featuring 24 logical fallacies and 24 cognitive biases, as well as 3 game cards.
🌐
Word.Studio
word.studio › tool › fallacy-finder
Fallacy Finder • Word.Studio
November 4, 2025 - Step 2: Click or tap the “Find Fallacies” button to submit the text for analysis. The results should appear in under 30 seconds. You can run it a few times for varied results.
🌐
Imgflip
imgflip.com › memegenerator › 46468098 › Logical-Fallacy-Referee
Logical Fallacy Referee Meme Generator - Imgflip
Insanely fast, mobile-friendly meme generator. Make Logical Fallacy Referee memes or upload your own images to make custom memes
🌐
Purdue OWL
owl.purdue.edu › owl › general_writing › academic_writing › logic_in_argumentative_writing › fallacies.html
Logical Fallacies - Purdue OWL
This resource covers using logic within writing—logical vocabulary, logical fallacies, and other types of logos-based reasoning.
🌐
Logically Fallacious
logicallyfallacious.com
Logical Fallacies Explained, Searchable Fallacy Library & Archive
Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions, perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.
🌐
Logical Fallacies
logicalfallacies.org
Logical Fallacies - List of Logical Fallacies with Examples
A comprehensive list of logical fallacies with definitions and examples. Learn to identify formal and informal fallacies in arguments.
Find elsewhere
🌐
thethinkingshop
thethinkingshop.org
The Thinking Shop – thethinkingshop
Proceeds from every purchase help to support our non profit so we can create more resources available under Creative Commons licenses (free digital downloads via the homepage). "Close (esc)" ... Shipping calculated at checkout. Featuring 24 common logical fallacies and cognitive biases, plus ...
🌐
Medium
medium.com › @MrPapageno › the-creators-creator-exposing-the-logical-fallacy-at-the-heart-of-religious-reasoning-957f1b04c6df
The Creator’s Creator: Exposing the Logical Fallacy at the Heart of Religious Reasoning | by Mr. Papageno | Medium
October 27, 2024 - Think about it — if we accept that something complex can exist without needing a creator (God), then why can’t we apply same reasoning to universe itself? If God can be eternal and uncreated, why couldn’t the fundamental laws of physics and quantum vacuum be eternal and uncreated? The logic simply doesn’t hold up.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/exjw › found a new study tool aka logical fallacy detector.
r/exjw on Reddit: Found a new study tool aka Logical Fallacy Detector.
December 19, 2023 -

I dont know about you, but when I learned what logical fallacys were, I have never been able to look at a watchtower magazine the same.

With all the new AI tech, I became curious if it was possible to feed AI text (like from the watchtower) and see if it can identify the logical fallacies in the script.

This led me to a website: Fallacy Detector | LF (logicalfallacies.org)

So I took a paragraph from the latest study edition Watchtower. Watchtower will usually talk about an old bible story and then contort some lesson from it (basically watchtower's take on things).... Usually this is where the fallacies fall from the sky.

I decided paragraph's 8/9 would be a good place to start

HOW ARE FAITH AND WORKS RELATED?

8-9. What have some individuals wrongly concluded from the writings of Paul and of James, and why?

8 For centuries, the relationship between faith and works has been hotly debated in Christendom. Some clergymen teach that all you have to do to be saved is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You may have heard them say, “Accept Jesus and be saved.” Clergymen may even quote Paul’s words: “God counts righteousness apart from works.” (Rom. 4:6) However, others contend that you can “save yourself” by going on religious pilgrimages and by performing other duties as outlined by the church. They perhaps quote James 2:24: “A man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.”

9 As a result of such positions, some religious writers have concluded that Paul and James disagreed on the subject of faith and works. Clergymen may claim that while Paul believed that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works, James taught that works are essential in order to have God’s approval. A professor of divinity put it this way: “James did not understand Paul’s motive for insisting that [being declared righteous] is by faith alone and not by works.” But Jehovah inspired both Paul and James to write what they did. (2 Tim. 3:16) So there must be a simple way to harmonize their statements. There is​—by considering their writings in context.

After copying this text, I pasted it into the Logical Fallacy Detector. Here is the result:

Fallacy Detector

Logical Fallacies: 1. False Dichotomy: The author presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only two options are to believe in Jesus and be saved, or to save oneself through religious practices. This oversimplifies the debate and ignores other possible perspectives. 2. Straw Man: The author misrepresents the opposing viewpoint by suggesting that those who believe in the importance of works teach that one can "save themselves" through religious practices. This misrepresentation weakens the argument against the opposing viewpoint. 3. Appeal to Authority: The author appeals to the authority of Jehovah as the inspirer of both Paul and James, implying that their teachings must be in agreement. This does not address the actual arguments made by Paul and James, but instead relies on the authority of a higher power to resolve the debate.

I think this tool has potential and possibilities. Give it a try. Leave your experience in the comments.

🌐
YesChat
yeschat.ai › home › gpts › fallacy finder-free ai-powered analysis tool
Fallacy Finder-Free AI-Powered Analysis Tool
Provide text or documents you want analyzed for fallacies or linguistic manipulations directly into the platform. Choose the specific type of analysis you need, whether it's for logical fallacies, argumentative strategies, or manipulative language detection.
🌐
Yourbias
yourbias.is
24 Cognitive Biases stuffing up your thinking
Get yourself a deck of these pretty great high-quality cards featuring 24 logical fallacies, 24 cognitive biases, and 3 game cards.
🌐
Logical Fallacy
logical-fallacy.com
Logical Fallacy
This fallacy manifests when someone asserts that their right to free expression shields them from any form of disagreement, rebuttal, social repercussions, or the natural consequences of their speech.
🌐
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Fallacy
Fallacy - Wikipedia
2 weeks ago - An influential collection of texts on logic and reason, the Nyāya Sūtras, attributed to Aksapada Gautama, variously estimated to have been composed between the 6th century BCE and the 2nd century CE, lists in its theory of inference five such ...
🌐
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_fallacies
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
3 days ago - The following fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is ...
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/islam › is the “watch-maker argument” a logical fallacy?
r/islam on Reddit: Is the “watch-maker argument” a logical fallacy?
May 8, 2020 -

One key argument I see theists make, is that “everything needs a creator”. Often, what they say is “the shoes/clothes/watch you have all had a creator, so why doesn’t the universe have a creator?”

Is this argument a logical fallacy? Am I the only one that finds it weird that people try and apply materialistic arguments to something like the universe, the universe isn’t a man-made item so who said these rules apply? Someone prove me wrong or maybe I’ve misinterpreted the whole premise?

Top answer
1 of 8
10
I think we need to go deeper in order to avoid the problems that may arise from this logic. Not sure if it’s a fallacy, I think it’s just not developed enough. We can try to develop it. The ones who make shoes and clothes also were created. One can say their parents gave birth to them. You can go back millennia from parent to child, from human to earth, from earth to solar system, from solar system to local group of stars, from stars to galaxies from galaxies to universe. You can keep going back till you show that everything that has had a beginning, was a result of a prior thing having a beginning. Then you say that the Creator is the One who made that (when debating with an atheist you should say “the Creator” because they themselves don’t understand what the Creator is the only One worthy of all worship yet). They will then try to apply your previous logic to the Creator, but it doesn’t apply to the Creator because the whole chain we made prior was time dependent, and time doesn’t exist if there is no motion of matter or space in which that motion can occur. Space and matter, and thus time itself, was made by the Creator as we just said. Thus, the Creator is outside the confines of time, having no beginning and no end- He is Eternal. This may allude to two of the names of Allah SWT: Al-Awwal and Al-Aakhir. This agrees with the idea that you can’t apply the same rules of creation to the Creator. Everything in creation is a combination of other creations (atoms are creation, and the rearrangement and motion of atoms leads to other creations). However, the Creator can’t be thought of in the same way because He doesn’t exist within the creation (which He made) and is not subject to its laws (which He made in the first place). So yeah I think the whole watch maker argument is getting somewhere, but we need to just develop it further. Allah SWT knows best. If I have said something wrong, please correct me.
2 of 8
10
The watch-maker argument not a fallacy. It's a reasonable conclusion. Imagine you are an astronaut. You land on a planet an find what looks like an abandoned city. It has what appear to be roads, buildings etc. laid out according to plan. The buildings have scribblings and marks on them which seem to follow syntax etc. From this information it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this was a city built by intelligent beings who had reason and planning. The unreasonable and silly conclusion here would be to think this was some blind natural process which somehow by chance made it look like a city. If your mind is sound and your fitrah is intact, no amount of "arguments"/word play will convince you that it happened by blind physical processes. You would be perfectly reasonable to laugh at such silly thinking. Imagine you are going in a forest and you find what looks like a giant carving of mens' faces on a mountain (like mount rushmore). It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that it was carved by someone intelligent and skilled. What would be incredibly dumb is to say it happened by "wind erosion" or by chance. If your mind is sound and your fitrah is intact, no amount of "arguments"/word play will convince you that it happened by wind erosion. You would be perfectly reasonable to laugh at such silly thinking. The strongest and the firmest argument for Allaah is the intact fitrah. Any person would sound mind and intact fitrah would see the signs of Allaah's creation everywhere he looks. Only incredibly stupid people who fill their brains with nonsensical arguments and debates all day and whose fitrah has been distorted by miseducation will deny the existence of Allaah. Don't be impressed by their word play and listen to your fitrah.