There are formal and informal fallacies. Basically, a fallacy is a type of defect in an argument other than just a false premise, it always generates a bad influence. The defect can be formal or informal. A formal defect is a defect in the structure only found in deductive arguments. Informal defect isn't pertaining to form; vagueness and illicit assumptions lead to these. You can only detect it by examining the content of the argument. Two true premises can lead to a false conclusion. The video gave great examples using bullfights, executions, and boxing matches. Illicit assumptions rather than shape defects lead to a fallacy. The way fallacies typically work is by appealing to emotions rather than facts. They negatively characterize arguments, appeal to laziness, appeal to pride and superstition etc., so that you will accept the conclusion. There are two sides to our brain. The left side, the more analytical side, is where reason, logic, control, and scientific thinking happens. The right side is more artistic. Intuition, creativity, passion, and freedom are ideals that are housed in this side of the brain. When it’s a fallacy of relevance, the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. They may appear relevant due to psychological connections. mThere were seven fallacies and sub-topics discussed in the video. (Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Pity, Ad Populum: Direct/Indirect, Ad Hominem: Abusive, Circumstantial, Tu Quo Que, Strawman, Missing the Point, Red Herring) The appeal to force, argumentum ad baculum, happens when the arguer motivates an inference simply through physical and psychological threats of harm to the listener or reader, rather than the logical connections between premises and conclusions themselves. All arguments that make you worry aren't fallacious. Some arguments have reasonable concern. The appeal to pity, argumentum ad misericordiam, is when the arguer tries to motivate an inference by invoking sympat