The COVID-19 pandemic has created a unique online environment with high numbers of Americans opting to stay home for safety or because there’s nothing to do.

We get onto the internet for information or to connect with friends and family on social media. But the problem with so many people stuck at home is that invariably we get sucked into the drama that appears on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms.

Many readers are frustrated with the state of the world, the slow pace of economic recovery or governmental response, the far-off hope of a vaccine, cure or herd immu­nity, or beset with a personal anecdote of a friend or relative who has become ill or died from COVID-19, lost their job or their business, or suffered some other tragedy, and takes to social media to vent their frustrations. Often these frus­trations result in heated debate and bad rhetorical devices to fight these arguments.

While we have always kept an eye out for logical fallacies in the comment section of our news stories, and sometimes pointed out to users that their comments and criticisms or attacks on other people who comment contain these fallacies and failures of rhetorical argument, the pandemic has exacerbated the problems of online debate and conversation.

Here are some fallacies to avoid and how to counter them.

— The fallacy of the false dilemma is one of the most common we see in our comment threads. Also known as the “either-or” logical fallacy, it suggests there are only two options to a problem, usually diametrically opposed over a topic, and forces the opponent of the argument to either pick A or pick B. For example, either we all wear masks 24 hours a day or we all die from COVID-19. There is a middle ground between these two clear extremes.

Find the middle ground, a third way, or respond “side­ways” — a rhetorical flanking move that pokes hole in the “either-or” question with another option beyond A or B.

— The ad hominem fallacy, or “against the man,” is basi­cally a Latin term for name-calling. When a person makes an argument and follow-up comments attack the person rather than what they say, and the argument devolves into personal attacks.

For example, someone attacks or defends the character of local officials, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, President Donald Trump, Dr. Anthony Fauci or Dr. Cara Christ, rather than what the official has actually said or done. Or, someone lobs a personal attack on the character of the person commenting on social media rather than what was written in their post.

Refocus the debate on what was actually written or said, not the perceived character of the speaker. Quote directly if needed.

— The moral equivalence fallacy compares two unrelated things and attempts to make them appear morally equivalent. “Fascist” is an extreme far-right ideology and “communist” is an extreme far-left ideology. While both are totalitarian systems, they cannot and should not be used interchange­ably, nor in place of “totalitarian,” which is more accurate for the argument. That said, the United States is still a good way off from this level of government control.

Point out the difference and argue the rational middle.

— The hasty generalization fallacy is over-generaliza­tion based on a single example. Recently, one local woman posted a screenshot of a business sign in Michigan and then suggested that because of that sign, Verde Valley customers should avoid a local franchise, ignoring the vast difference in geography and ownership models.

Question the specifics and point out that one person or one incident does not fairly represent the whole. Ask for systemic analysis or more examples to prove a claim is not an anomaly.

— The red herring fallacy, like its literary cousin, attempts to shift the focus away from the topic to a tangentially related topic.

For example, a person may criticize the undemocractic imposition of mask orders by mayors without debate. An opponent might lob attacks suggesting the person is anti-science or “pro-virus.” The person could whole-heart­edly believe masks do substantially prevent the spread of COVID-19, but their argument was about the process, not the science.

Bring the conversation back to the topic.

— A special fallacy is “reductio ad hitlerum,” i.e., comparing things to Nazi Germany or Adolf Hitler. Originally coined by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss in 1951, attorney Mike Godwin specifically applied it to internet debate in 2012 with “Godwin’s Law,” which states “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” By extension, the argument is over and whoever made the analogy definitively lost it.

If it’s used, point out the historical error, claim victory and move on.

With no end of the pandemic in sight, save a miraculous vaccine or herd immunity, we will likely be facing months more of online debate. Let’s at least use this time to argue effectively, civilly and fairly.

Christopher Fox Graham

Managing Editor