There are many logical fallacies, and over the next few weeks and months, I will occasionally focus on a fallacy. While fallacies are typically from the debating sphere and may seem out of place on a blog dedicated to writing, they do appear in writing as well. And not just in social media and blog comments either. They can appear in website and marketing copy, political speeches, opinion pieces, and so on.
Today’s fallacy is false dichotomy.
What is the false dichotomy fallacy?
When it comes to fallacies, a false dichotomy is when a speaker tries to simplify the debate by arguing that there are only two options to choose from in the argument, despite there being more than two options. This tactic is often used when the speaker wants to polarize the audience, then building the option they support and tearing down the last remaining—according to them—option in an effort to win the argument.
Now, keep in mind that just because someone presents two options doesn’t mean that it automatically is a false dichotomy fallacy. Consider this example:
- Hot peppers are either the greatest food ever, or they’re not.
And the speaker has a point. They either are the greatest food or they’re not. There aren’t any other options. So that assertion wouldn’t be fallacious.
Examples of the false dichotomy fallacy
Here are some actual examples of the false dichotomy fallacy:
- There are two kinds of people in this world: those who like hot peppers and those who don’t.
- Either we increase the police budget, or we don’t care about crime.
- If you don’t come with me to their wedding, you’ll just end up being bored at home.
- To be a good person, you must go to church each week.
- He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
In all the above examples, the speaker creates binary situations for situations that have more than one option.
Creating false dichotomies is unfair to those you debate, and it’s intellectually lazy for you. Hopefully, these examples explain the importance of focusing on an opponent’s actual claims.
Which logical fallacy should I cover next? Let me know in the comments below.
