or incorrectly draw a conclusion from reasons that do not support the conclusion. Fallacies are so common that logicians have names for different types of fallacies.
The Chewbacca defense is an example of a red herring fallacy, which gets its name from a police dog exercise in which police officers, while trying to discern the best trail hunters, use strong‐smelling red herring fishes in an attempt to throw dogs off the trail of a scent. In a red‐herring fallacy, someone uses claims and arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in order to get someone to draw a conclusion that they believe to be true. So, the claims and arguments are the “red herrings” they use to throw you off the “trail” of reasoning that would lead to another, probably more appropriate, conclusion altogether. In the episode “Weight Gain 4000,” Wendy seems to have a legitimate complaint that Cartman cheated to win the essay contest, but people refuse to draw that conclusion given that they are diverted by the idea of Kathy Lee Gifford coming to town. Even after Wendy produces the evidence that Cartman had really handed in a copy of Walden as his essay, they simply do not care about drawing the conclusion that Cartman had cheated. In a lot of South Park episodes, people are thrown off the track of issues or arguments by other circumstances or events that capture their attention. This is a humorous way for Trey and Matt to make their points about people's faulty and crazy reasoning.
Slippery Slopes
The slippery slope is another fallacy often lampooned on South Park. This fallacy occurs when one inappropriately concludes that some further chain of events, ideas, or beliefs will follow from some initial event, idea, or belief and thus we should reject the initial event, idea, or belief. It is as if there is an unavoidable “slippery” slope that one is on, and there is no way to avoid sliding down it. Mrs. Broflovski's reasoning about the Terrance and Phillip Show being taken off the air might go something like this: “If we allow a show like the Terence and Phillip Show on the air, then it will corrupt my kid, then it will corrupt your kid, then it will corrupt all of our kids, then shows like this one will crop up all over the TV, then more and more kids will be corrupted, then all of TV will be corrupted, then the corrupt TV producers will corrupt other areas of our life, etc., etc., etc. So, we must take the Terrance and Phillip Show off the air; otherwise, it will lead to all of these other corruptions!” If I have accurately characterized Mrs. Broflovski's reasoning here, then we can see the slippery slope. It does not follow that the corrupt TV producers will corrupt other areas of our life. All of a sudden we're at the bottom of the slope! What just happened!
In “Clubhouses,” Mrs. Marsh uses a kind of slippery‐slope fallacy in combination with a hasty generalization in response to Stan's grabbing a cookie. Here, we can see the obvious humor involved, as she is going through a rough separation time with her husband: “You men are all alike. First you get a cookie and then you criticize the way I dress, and then it's the way I cook! Next you'll be telling me that you need your space, and that I'm sabotaging your creativity! Go ahead Stanley, get your damn cookie!” Her conclusion is obviously that Stan should not grab a cookie because, otherwise, all of these other things will happen. Further, the “you men are all alike” comment is the result of a hasty generalization.
A false dilemma is the fallacy of concluding something based upon premises that include only two options, when, in fact, there are three or more options. People are inclined to an “all‐or‐nothing” approach to matters, and this usually is reflective of a false dilemma in their thinking. In some situation, could it be that we have a little bit of both, so that we get a both‐and, rather than an either‐or as our conclusion? In “Mr. Hankey, The Christmas Poo,” the people of South Park have an all‐or‐nothing kind of thinking when they conclude that the only way not to offend anyone is to rid the Christmas show of any and all Christmas references. This kind of logic has disastrous consequences, as the show is ruined and people wind up fighting over it. Could they have included a few other religious traditions, instead of excluding all of them? Now the both‐and strategy, which can avoid a false dilemma, might not always have the best consequences. Consider “Chef Goes Nanners,” where, in the end, even though a both‐and solution is reached and supposed “ethnic diversity” is added to the South Park flag, it is obviously questionable whether such an addition is good, let alone right, for the townsfolk.
An argument from inappropriate authority is a fallacy that sounds like what it is, incorrectly drawing a conclusion from premises based upon a non‐credible, non‐qualified, or illegitimate authority figure. The best way to avoid this fallacy altogether is to become an authority concerning some matter yourself by getting all of the relevant facts, understanding issues, doing research, checking and double‐checking your sources, dialoguing with people, having your ideas challenged, defending your position, being open to revise your position, and the like. However, since we can't become authorities on everything, we need to rely upon others. In “Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?” Fr. Maxi claims that Kyle (who is Jewish) and Timmy (who is limited in his verbal communication) will both go to hell if they don't confess their sins and, apparently, accept Christ as their savior. At first glance, the boys' conclusion that Kyle and Timmy will go to hell if they don't confess and convert seems not to be a case of the fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority. After all, Fr. Maxi is an authority of the Church. However, if one investigates Church doctrine, one can see that no human being – pope, priest, or layperson – can make pronouncements about who will go to hell or who won't go to hell.
In an ad hominem fallacy someone concludes that a person's claims or arguments are false or not worth listening to because of premises that concern an attack on the actions, personality, or ideology of the person putting forward the claim or argument. In other words, instead of focusing on the person's issue, claims, or argument, one attacks the person (ad hominem is Latin for to the man). This strategy of discrediting a person's argument by discrediting the person is common. But notice, the person and the person's arguments are two distinct things, and they are not logically related to one another. For example, in “Butt Out” a cartoon Rob Reiner puts forward an argument for why kids in South Park should not smoke, and he goes on a campaign to get a law enacted to ban smoking in the town. However, not only is he portrayed as having a junk food vice but he also wants to deceptively use the boys to get the law passed. Now, even if Reiner does have a junk food problem, and even if he does something immoral in trying to get the boys to help him, what does this have to do with the arguments concerning whether kids should smoke or whether laws against smoking should be passed in South Park? The answer is, absolutely nothing! Yet, we could be led to the conclusion that no law should be set up in South Park against smoking based upon premises that portray Reiner's apparent hypocrisy and deviance. Again, Reiner's hypocrisy and deviance have nothing to do with the arguments for or against smoking.
“The Defense Rests”
At least part of the appeal of South Park has to do with pointing out the flaws in our thinking, and no one is free from blame. We all occasionally forget to check if all of our premises are true, or believe that a conclusion follows from premises when it doesn't. But the biggest logical problem we have has to do with our staunchly held emotional beliefs, the ones that we just can't let go of no matter what evidence and arguments are presented to us. Often times, this logical problem turns into a factual problem, and people suffer as a result. Some people are almost phobic in their fear of letting go of some belief.
In “All About the Mormons,” Stan yells at the Mormons for believing in their religion without any proof, and they smile and explain that it is a matter of faith. Without insulting the Mormons, or any religion for that matter, in that moment Stan is hinting at part of what a rational, adult critical thinker should constantly do. As you read the chapters in this book, I ask you to be mindful of claims, arguments, deductive arguments versus inductive arguments, good versus bad arguments, and fallacies that are spoken about by the authors. And, hopefully, the authors have avoided fallacies and bad arguments in putting forward their own positions! With this logic lesson in mind, you can be the judge of that.
For pop culture resources and philosophical resources related to this chapter please visit