After reports of strong streaming numbers for a new HBO Max series, some claims started circulating:
1. “This show is officially the new Friends.”
2. “If millions are streaming it, the audience has spoken.”
3. “Friends wouldn’t survive in today’s streaming era anyway.”
4. “High rewatch numbers prove it has the same cultural impact.”
5. “Streaming success means the writing clearly connects more with modern audiences.”
6. “Nostalgia is the only reason people still defend older sitcoms.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot here?

Here are some statements and reactions surrounding the Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua fight:
1. “This fight proves Jake Paul is a legitimate elite boxer.”
2. “If Anthony Joshua agreed to fight him, then Jake Paul must belong at the highest level.”
3. “The massive prize money shows this is one of the most important fights in boxing today.”
4. “Boxing has changed — popularity now matters more than skill.”
5. “Traditional boxing fans just can’t accept that the sport has evolved.”
6. “If millions are watching, the criticism clearly doesn’t matter.”
7. “This fight settles the debate once and for all.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot here?

Here are some statements and reactions following reports about Elon Musk’s net worth:
1. “Elon Musk’s net worth just hit $600 billion — that proves he’s the smartest businessman alive.”
2. “You don’t become this rich unless you’re doing everything right.”
3. “His wealth shows the system rewards talent and hard work.”
4. “If his ideas weren’t good, the market wouldn’t value him this highly.”
5. “This level of success means his opinions on technology, politics, and society matter more.”
6. “Anyone could do this if they just thought bigger and worked harder.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot here?

After Natalie Tippett broke her silence, several statements and reactions emerged:
1. “Now that she’s finally spoken, everything makes sense.”
2. “If she stayed silent for this long, there must have been something to hide.”
3. “Her version proves that Lily’s narrative was exaggerated.”
4. “People wouldn’t react this strongly unless something really wrong happened.”
5. “You can tell who’s telling the truth just by how emotional they sound.”
6. “The timing of her statement says more than the words themselves.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps do you spot here?

Here are some claims and theories circulating online about Timothée Chalamet:
1. “There’s no way his rise to fame was natural — someone powerful is clearly backing him.”
2. “Every major role he gets is part of a carefully planned industry agenda.”
3. “Hollywood doesn’t elevate actors like this unless there’s something hidden going on.”
4. “The timing of his success proves it’s not a coincidence.”
5. “If you connect the dots, the pattern becomes obvious.”
6. “People who don’t see it are just refusing to look closely enough.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps do you spot here?

Here are some recent social media comments connected to the viral “6-7” trend:
1. “Yesterday at church, my 5-year-old went absolutely nuts repeating ‘six seven’ like 10 times.”
The Independent
2. “And now I think we need to make this narrow exception to the First Amendment and ban these numbers forever.”
3. “Where did this even come from? I don’t understand it.”
4. “No one is safe from the maddeningly viral ‘67’ trend — not in schools, not in churches, and not even in the White House.”
Some educators are banning the slang in classrooms because it’s disruptive.
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps do you spot in these statements?

com/2025/12/12/paris-agreement-ten-years-later-failed/ By AUDREY STREB At the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) on Dec. 12, 2015, 195 parties signed the Paris Agreement, vowing to cut their emissions in an effort to stave off global warming. Nonetheless, global emissions have increased over the last 10 years, according to recent data from the European Commission’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR). Though the European Union led the world in lowering emissions, they have still hit a record high, according to EDGAR. President Donald Trump exited the Paris Agreement through a day-one executive order. Some energy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation the Paris Agreement was “unconstitutional” and celebrated Trump’s move to decouple from the UN’s climate agenda. “Today marks the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Climate Accord. Despite the world spending $10 trillion dollars trying to implement the agreement over the past 10 years, emissions have increased 12% while the weather and climate remained the same,” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF. “More than just waste, fraud and abuse, the agreement was an unconstitutional effort by the Obama administration to saddle Americans with a UN climate treaty without the required Senate ratification. In the US, efforts to implement the Paris agreement have pointlessly raised energy prices, fueled inflation and weakened national security by making the energy grid dependent on Communist China-made wind, solar and battery equipment. President Trump is to be commended for pulling the U. out of the Paris treaty and for taking steps to terminate its offspring known as the Green New Scam. ” (RELATED: Trump Takes Firm Stand, Exits Paris Agreement Again) Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told the DCNF that “more than a decade after the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, its results are impossible to ignore. ” “The accord has failed to achieve its stated objectives while fueling policies that have driven deindustrialization across Europe, weakened energy security, and sent electricity and manufacturing costs soaring for households and businesses,” Isaac continued. “Global emissions, erroneously treated as a political control knob for the climate, have continued to rise as energy production and heavy industry shift to countries with lower environmental and human rights standards, leaving working families poorer and supply chains more vulnerable. Paris ultimately delivered higher costs, greater dependence on adversarial nations, and a cautionary lesson in the consequences of politicizing energy policy

Here are some statements from Revanth Reddy about the central government:
1. “The BJP government systematically disenfranchises citizens through its policies.”
2. “Decisions are made to suppress opposition and marginalize large sections of the population.”
3. “The current administration does not care about the common man; it only focuses on its own agenda.”
4. “Every step the government takes seems aimed at weakening democratic rights and civil liberties.”
5. “The central leadership is ignoring the needs of states that oppose it politically.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?

Context Notes for Audience:
Critics might point out generalizations (“every step” / “systematically”), appeal to fear, or ad hominem against the government.
Supporters may argue it’s political rhetoric, highlighting the difference between fact-based critique and persuasive language.

Here are some statements from President Trump on AI regulations:
1. “We want to have one central source of approval — 50 different regulatory regimes hamper the growth of the nascent industry.”
2. “To win, U.S. AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation.”
3. “Current patchwork regulations make compliance harder, especially for start-ups.”
4. “Until a national standard is in place, we will check the most onerous and excessive state laws that threaten innovation.”
5. “States that conflict with federal AI priorities may lose access to federal broadband funding.”
6. “We must act to prevent ideological bias and false results in AI.”
Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?

Context Notes for Audience:
Critics argue this could create a “lawless Wild West” for AI, weakening safety and consumer protections.
Some points may involve false dilemmas (innovation vs. regulation), appeal to consequences, or oversimplification.

The veteran’s response highlighted some of the underlying issues. Here are some of the statements made:
1. “We’ve already sacrificed enough for our country — it’s not about what we ‘deserve’ but what the country owes us for our service.”
2. “The government spends billions on other priorities; it’s not fair to say we can’t afford to take care of those who served.”
3. “Citing ‘costs’ as the reason not to help veterans is an insult — they need real care, not empty promises.”
4. “Our sacrifices should be seen in action, not in just words about budgets and numbers.”
5. “Instead of worrying about financial costs, focus on the human cost of ignoring the needs of those who fought for this country.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?

Note:
The veteran’s response might contain an appeal to emotion (appealing to feelings of duty and sacrifice) that could overshadow pragmatic concerns about resource allocation. Additionally, the false equivalence between different types of government spending (military vs. social programs) could be analyzed.