The conversation below takes place between two friends, Bill and Dave.
Bill: Dave, what is your take on this trending debate on abortion? It is all over – in the news, in schools and, practically everywhere. Personally, I think the idea of abortion is wrong and should not be given a second thought.
Dave: well, I did not expect anything different from you. After all, you are a priest. (Fallacy of relevance: ad hominen).
Bill: that is not true. Haven’t you heard Jones? He holds the same idea, so at least I am not alone in this school of thought.
Dave: I think you are also aware that Jones intends to be a priest. He is preparing to start his course next month. That makes him a priest as well. So I would not expect a different idea from him either. (A Fallacy of relevance known as circumstantial ad hominem)
Bill: Hey, brother, you are so negative about this. Are you a pro-abortion activist, or something? Why do you doubt the truth behind our beliefs about it?
Dave: to me, asking a priest if abortion is good or bad is the same as asking a republican their take on immigrants, we all know they are anti-immigration (Fallacy of Generalization: Hasty generalization).
Bill: I am certain you did not watch the fox news last night, did you. A republican senator was on interview and he seemed so much in support of the immigration acts proposed by the democrats.
Dave: I do not believe that his answers during the interview were authentic. I say this because the answers he gave could have been influenced by the subjectivity of the sampling entity (Fallacy of generalization: Biased sample).
Bill: Well, you could be right. I am not a good politician but I know that some republicans hold the same views as democrats, but this is a mere coincidence (Fallacy of generalization: slothful induction).
Dave: did you watch the Oprah Winfrey show after primetime? That woman is not only interesting, but also extremely rich. She earns more than all male talk shows. It therefore passes for a fact that all women talk show hosts are richer than their male counterparts (Fallacy of presumption: covert accident).
Bill: I do not think that is true. You see, we cannot use one case to make a general rule.
Dave: then maybe we should give it a philosophical outlook and say; Oprah is a successful talk show host. All successful talk show hosts are rich. Additionally, all talk show hosts live life on the first lane and are generally contented with life. Since Oprah leads life on the first lane, and seems happy, it follows that she is a successful talk show host (Fallacy of presumption: begging the question).
Bill: (laughing) hey, my brother let us change the topic because I do not get the sense in that. We could focus on the weather, maybe?
Dave: (with a sigh) well, it’s a rainy season. George Bush loves the rainy season.
Bill: are you talking about former president Bush or your garden? (Dave has a garden of roses which he named George Bush). (Fallacy of Language: Equivocal)
Dave: come on! I am referring to our former president Bush. I always endeavor to understand the preferences of our presidents. For instance, Barrack Obama loves smoke.
Bill: what exactly do you mean? Our president loves watching billows of smoke, or that our president loves smoking cigarette? (Fallacy of language: misuse of metaphor).
Dave: I am certain you know what I mean, brother. Even so, my take is that all citizens deserve full time service from their leaders. Presidents that have leisure cannot offer such services. Therefore, all leaders should not have a minute of leisure time. (Fallacy of relevance: Ignoratio elenchi).
Bill: maybe that is true – just maybe. Good day my brother.
