How People Cheat in Arguments

The rhetorical tricks used to hijack conversations — and how to recognise and counter them

You’ve probably had this experience online.

You make a clear point in a discussion. At first, it seems simple enough. But within a few replies, something curious happens. The subject shifts. Counter-claims appear that only loosely relate to what you actually said. Before long, the conversation is no longer about your point at all.

Instead, your motives are questioned. Your tone becomes the issue. An unrelated example is introduced as though it settles the matter. Soon enough come the familiar rituals: a little name-calling here, a moral insinuation there.

What began as a discussion about an idea quickly becomes something else — a discussion about you: your character, your intentions, your supposed moral standing. The original point quietly disappears beneath a flurry of reactions.

It can feel like trying to hold a bar of soap. No matter how carefully you state your case, the argument slips away. Just when you think you have grasped the issue, it moves again. Before long, you realise you are wrestling in the mud of insinuation and accusation. And as the old saying goes, when you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty — though the pig, of course, rather enjoys it.

So what can you do? Opt out of any online conversations. It’s what many do. Or fall prey to a kind of digital Stockholm Syndrome, and become like our kidnappers, using the rhetorical devices that captured us in the first place.

I’ve been trying something different. Reviewing these conversations more carefully and looking back at exchanges after the dust had settled, I noticed the same rhetorical sleights of hand appear.

What feels chaotic in the moment turns out, on examination, to follow surprisingly familiar patterns and actually be rather predictable.

And once you begin to recognise those patterns, something important changes. You are far less likely to be pulled into them, and there are effective ways to respond.

What follows, then, is not a guide to “winning arguments.” It is something more modest, I hope, and more useful: a map of the most common ways online conversations get hijacked — and a few simple ways to bring them back to the point.

Take a look and see which ones you recognise, and let me know which ones you think are missing.

The Ultimate Logical Fallacy Cheat Sheet

1. Ad Hominem (”To the Person”)

• The Trick: Attacking your character or traits instead of your argument.

• Typical Line: “You’re just being point-scoring/ignorant/ideological.”

• The Redirect: “That’s a comment about me rather than the point I made, which was...”

2. Whataboutism (”The Deflection”)

• The Trick: Shifting the focus to someone else’s wrongdoing to avoid criticism.

• Typical Line: “But what about the Conservatives / Labour / the other side?”

• The Redirect: “That may be a separate issue, but it doesn’t change the facts of the point I raised here.”

3. Straw Man (”The Fake Version”)

• The Trick: Misrepresenting your position to make it easier to attack.

• Typical Line: “So what you’re really saying is...” (followed by an extreme version of your point).

• The Redirect: “That is a distortion of my position. My actual claim was...”

4. Motte-and-Bailey (”The Retreat”)

• The Trick: Making a wild claim, then retreating to a “safe” claim when challenged.

• Typical Line: “I only meant that nuance matters.” (after saying something radical).

• The Redirect: “That’s a different, much milder claim than the one you originally made. Can we go back to the first one?”

5. Tone Policing (”The Style Critique”)

• The Trick: Focusing on how you said something to avoid discussing what you said.

• Typical Line: “You’re being far too combative/argumentative right now.”

• The Redirect: “We can disagree about my tone, but the core issue itself still needs to be addressed.”

6. False Equivalence (”The False Balance”)

• The Trick: Claiming two things are the same when they differ wildly in scale or evidence.

• Typical Line: “Well, both sides do it,” or “This is no different from [X].”

• The Redirect: “Those situations aren’t logically equivalent. Similarity in one small respect doesn’t make them the same.”

7. Gish Gallop (”The Blizzard”)

• The Trick: Drowning you in a rapid series of many weak claims so you can’t answer them all.

• Typical Line: “Here are ten reasons why you’re wrong...” (followed by a wall of text).

• The Redirect: “That’s a lot of separate claims at once. Let’s take them one at a time—which one is your strongest?”

8. Appeal to Motive (”The Mind Reader”)

• The Trick: Dismissing an argument by claiming to know your “hidden” agenda.

• Typical Line: “You’re only saying that because you’re [conservative/progressive/privileged].”

• The Redirect: “My motives don’t determine whether the facts are true. Can you address the argument itself?”

9. Moving the Goalposts (”The Goal-Shifter”)

• The Trick: Demanding new or higher levels of evidence after you’ve already provided proof.

• Typical Line: “Well, that still doesn’t prove it. I need to see [new requirement].”

• The Redirect: “That’s a different standard than we agreed on at the start. Why is the previous evidence insufficient?”

10. Loaded Language (”The Framing Trap”)

• The Trick: Using emotional or judgmental words to bias the audience before the facts are out.

• Typical Line: “Anyone who supports this dangerous/extremist/cruel policy is...”

• The Redirect: “Those are strong labels, but they don’t explain why the policy is wrong. Let’s look at the data.”

11. Argument from Authority (”The Expert Shield”)

• The Trick: Insisting something is true purely because an “expert” said so, without explaining why.

• Typical Line: “The experts/institutions all agree on this, so you’re wrong.”

• The Redirect: “Expertise is valuable, but the reasoning behind their conclusion is what matters. What is that reasoning?”

Some Help For You

Whilst the above may be helpful, it can feel a little overwhelming to remember all these tactics, let alone identify them quickly in the middle of an online exchange.

So instead, I’ve created a simple AI prompt to help, which you can download here.

If you copy and paste the prompt in this document into your AI chat tool of choice, it will ask you to paste in the comment you want to analyse. The tool will then identify the logical fallacies or rhetorical tactics being used, explain what is happening in the exchange, and suggest a calm way you might respond.

In other words, it gives you a quick way to diagnose the rhetorical moves someone may be using against you — and offers a clear response you can use to bring the conversation back to the actual issue.

I’d love to know which logical fallacies you most commonly encounter, which ones frustrate you the most, and how you’ve learned/are learning to respond when they appear.