ADOPTED INTO GLORY
Argument Analyzer
Paste an argument or objection below. The analyzer will examine its reasoning, identify possible fallacies, uncover hidden assumptions, and present a stronger version of the argument.
Not sure what to analyze?
Evaluates the reasoning without adopting a particular worldview.
This tool is educational. AI classifications should be evaluated alongside careful reasoning, context, and supporting evidence.
1
Paste the Argument
Enter the claim as accurately and completely as possible.
How to Use This Tool
2
Choose a Perspective
Select neutral analysis, Christian , formal logic, philosophy, or historical analysis.
3
Evaluate the Result
Use the explanation as a starting point. Consider the context, evidence, and strongest version of the opposing argument.
Learn the Fallacies Behind the Arguments
The analyzer can identify possible reasoning errors, but learning to recognize them yourself is the real goal. Search the library below to study definitions, examples, and possible responses.
SEARCH AND STUDY
Fallacy Library
Search by fallacy name, common wording, debate topic, or an example of the reasoning.
30 fallacies shown
No close match found
Try fewer words, a synonym, or paste the full argument into the Argument Analyzer above.
Straw Man
Misrepresents an argument so a weaker version can be attacked.
Example and response
Example: Christian: “Faith is trust based on evidence.” Reply: “So you think people should believe without evidence.”
How to respond: Restate the original position accurately and ask the person to address that claim.
Ad Hominem
Attacks the person instead of answering the argument.
Example and response
Example: “You are not a scientist, so your argument about fine-tuning is false.”
How to respond: Bring the discussion back to the reasons and evidence.
Genetic Fallacy
Judges a claim solely by its origin rather than whether it is true.
Example and response
Example: “You only believe Christianity because your parents raised you that way.”
How to respond: Separate how a belief was acquired from whether the belief is true.
Hasty Generalization
Draws a broad conclusion from too little or unrepresentative evidence.
Example and response
Example: “One pastor was dishonest, therefore pastors cannot be trusted.”
How to respond: Ask whether the evidence is large and representative enough.
False Dilemma
Presents only two options when more possibilities exist.
Example and response
Example: “Either science explains everything, or we must abandon reason.”
How to respond: Identify additional possibilities and show why the options are not exhaustive.
Red Herring
Introduces an irrelevant issue that distracts from the point under discussion.
Example and response
Example: Asked for evidence about the resurrection, someone replies only by discussing medieval wars.
How to respond: Acknowledge the new issue briefly, then return to the original claim.
Appeal to Emotion
Uses emotion as a substitute for evidence or reasoning.
Example and response
Example: “Hell sounds frightening, therefore it cannot be true.”
How to respond: Recognize the emotion while asking what evidence bears on the truth of the claim.
Appeal to Ridicule
Mocks a position instead of offering a reasoned refutation.
Example and response
Example: “You believe in a sky daddy, so your worldview is absurd.”
How to respond: Ask for the actual argument beneath the mockery.
Appeal to Authority
Treats an authority's opinion as decisive when the authority is irrelevant, misquoted, or not enough by itself.
Example and response
Example: “A famous actor says religion is irrational, so it must be.”
How to respond: Check expertise, relevance, agreement among experts, and the evidence itself.
Appeal to Ignorance
Claims something is true because it has not been disproved, or false because it has not been proved.
Example and response
Example: “You cannot prove God does not exist, therefore God exists.”
How to respond: Clarify who bears the burden of proof and what positive evidence exists.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Requires others to disprove a claim instead of supporting the claim being made.
Example and response
Example: “Aliens wrote the Bible. Prove they did not.”
How to respond: Ask the claimant to provide reasons for the claim.
Circular Reasoning
Uses the conclusion, stated or assumed, as support for itself.
Example and response
Example: “This source is trustworthy because it says it is trustworthy.”
How to respond: Identify the premise that merely repeats the conclusion and request independent support.
Begging the Question
Builds the disputed conclusion into a premise rather than proving it.
Example and response
Example: “Miracles cannot happen because supernatural events are impossible.”
How to respond: Expose the hidden assumption and ask why it should be accepted.
Slippery Slope
Claims one step will inevitably cause an extreme chain of events without adequate support.
Example and response
Example: “If we allow one religious symbol, the government will become a theocracy.”
How to respond: Ask for evidence supporting each step in the proposed chain.
Post Hoc
Assumes that because one event happened before another, it caused it.
Example and response
Example: “I prayed, then the storm stopped, so my prayer definitely caused it.”
How to respond: Consider coincidence, alternative causes, and a plausible mechanism.
False Cause
Claims a causal relationship without sufficient evidence.
Example and response
Example: “Religious countries have problems, therefore religion caused every problem.”
How to respond: Ask whether correlation, confounding factors, or reverse causation are involved.
Fallacy of Composition
Assumes what is true of the parts must be true of the whole.
Example and response
Example: “Every player is talented, therefore the team must work well together.”
How to respond: Explain that wholes can have properties not reducible to each part.
Fallacy of Division
Assumes what is true of a whole must be true of every part.
Example and response
Example: “The church is wealthy, therefore every member is wealthy.”
How to respond: Distinguish properties of the group from properties of individuals.
Equivocation
Changes the meaning of a key word during the argument.
Example and response
Example: “Evolution is only a theory; a theory is just a guess; therefore evolution is only a guess.”
How to respond: Define the key term and keep its meaning consistent.
Loaded Question
Asks a question that smuggles in an unproven assumption.
Example and response
Example: “Why does Christianity continue deceiving people?”
How to respond: Reject the hidden assumption before answering the question.
Moving the Goalposts
Changes the required standard after the original standard has been met.
Example and response
Example: After receiving historical evidence, someone demands scientific repeatability for a past event.
How to respond: State the original standard and ask why it has changed.
No True Scotsman
Protects a universal claim by redefining counterexamples out of the group.
Example and response
Example: “No Christian acts cruelly.” “That Christian did.” “Then he was not a real Christian.”
How to respond: Ask for a principled definition that was not invented solely to avoid the counterexample.
Tu Quoque
Dismisses criticism by accusing the critic of similar behavior.
Example and response
Example: “You cannot criticize lying because you have lied before.”
How to respond: Acknowledge hypocrisy if relevant, but return to whether the criticism is true.
Poisoning the Well
Discredits a person in advance so their argument will be rejected without consideration.
Example and response
Example: “Before he speaks, remember that apologists will say anything to defend faith.”
How to respond: Evaluate the argument independently of the preemptive attack.
Appeal to Popularity
Treats widespread belief as proof that a claim is true.
Example and response
Example: “Most people in this culture believe it, so it must be true.”
How to respond: Popularity can be relevant sociologically, but truth requires reasons and evidence.
Appeal to Tradition
Claims something is correct merely because it has long been believed or practiced.
Example and response
Example: “This interpretation must be right because it has been taught for generations.”
How to respond: Tradition may preserve knowledge, but it still needs justification.
Appeal to Novelty
Assumes a newer idea is better or truer simply because it is new.
Example and response
Example: “Christianity is ancient, so modern secularism must be more accurate.”
How to respond: Compare evidence rather than age.
Special Pleading
Applies a standard to others while exempting one's own claim without justification.
Example and response
Example: “Every claim needs evidence, except my claim that only science gives knowledge.”
How to respond: Ask for a relevant reason why the exception is justified.
Guilt by Association
Condemns a claim or person because of an association with a disliked group or individual.
Example and response
Example: “A dictator believed in objective morality, so objective morality is dangerous.”
How to respond: Judge the claim by its reasoning, not by unrelated people who also accepted it.
Non Sequitur
The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Example and response
Example: “The universe is enormous; therefore human life has no value.”
How to respond: Show the missing logical connection and ask for the unstated premise.