The day I realized I was a victim of domestic violence was the day that I posted about it online. After describing my situation on a forum, others responded with the vocabulary to articulate what was happening to me: abuse. For the first time, I was able to break through the confusion and identify the problem clearly, and I got out.
Last week, I sat in Round Rock City Hall and felt a similar kind of confusion as the City Council unanimously voted to approve a new Skybox data center, despite strong community opposition. One citizen after the next stepped up to the podium in a packed room to voice their concerns, and the Council pushed back. It was clear that they had already decided their vote well before hearing community feedback.
What was less clear was the language used by the Council and Skybox representatives. If their supportive words about the data center were true, then why did so many people still feel like something wrong was happening? Then, just like that day I posted to the forum, the vocabulary came to me. They were using logical fallacies.
A logical fallacy is an illegitimate argument that is often intended to mislead listeners. I have over a decade of experience in crafting persuasive messaging as a marketer, and am well aware of the wordplay people in powerful positions use to get their way. One of the most common unethical tactics is a logical fallacy, and the modern political climate is rife with examples. Round Rock’s City Council meeting was no exception.
If Round Rock City Council’s supportive words about the proposed data center were true, then why did so many people still feel like something wrong was happening?
I hope that by highlighting and defining these tactics, people will have the power to cut through the intentional misdirections they encounter.
The main fallacy of the night was one known as the “false dilemma.” The hallmark of a false dilemma is when someone claims that only two options exist, leaving out the consideration of more reasonable alternatives. Council members repeated ad nauseam that if the data center wasn’t approved, then the only alternative use for the land was building a huge warehouse.
But other uses are available. It can remain undeveloped. The power lines that bisect the property can be rerouted to allow residential or commercial zoning. The point is, we have options, but it’s not being presented that way.
Another fallacy of note was “slippery slope,” where the arguer claims a snowball effect will follow an initial event. Council members repeatedly hypothesized what may happen if the warehouse is built instead of the data center. Their claims included constant noise, heavy trucking in the area, light and air pollution, etc. None of this can be known in advance, but it serves their purpose to paint an unpleasant picture of what could happen in the absence of the data center.
“Red herring” was another frequently used fallacy during the meeting. Red herrings are the “look over here!” of arguments. The point being made is irrelevant and meant to distract from the main issue. Both the City Council and Skybox drew attention away from the fact that residents’ electricity bills will increase. Instead, the company redirected to how charitably involved they are in the community, and that they will pay the setup costs for connecting their data center to the grid. This is irrelevant from the long-term energy billing impacts on the community.
A final fallacy example was “ad hominem”: an attack on an opponent’s personal characteristics, rather than addressing the logic of their argument. In a tense exchange, Council Member Frank Ortega attempted to discredit a speaker’s property value concerns on the basis that the speaker was not a realtor.
Being able to spot these logical fallacies is a critical skill that applies far beyond the City of Round Rock. In today’s global misinformation climate, these tactics are used at every level of politics, in the workplace, and even interpersonal relationships. We must be able to notice and identify these tactics for what they are. It is our best defense at bringing clear, fair, and logical conversation back to the forefront of decision-making.
Cambria Sawyer is an Austinite of 22 years, with over 10 years of experience as a marketer, writer, and public communicator. She currently works at the American Psychological Association, where she collaborates with librarians to provide peer-reviewed research and writing support resources to students and educators. In her free time, you can find her mountain biking on the Barton Springs Greenbelt.
Got something to say? The Chronicle welcomes opinion pieces on any topic from the community. Submit yours now at austinchronicle.com/opinion.
This article appears in February 20 • 2026.