Loogikates

Loogikates is a neologism used in discussions of logic and rhetoric to denote a category of argument patterns that mix formal logical structure with rhetorical manipulation, often producing superficially valid inferences that rely on ambiguity, presupposition, or shifting of terms.

The term appeared in online communities in the late 2010s and has shown up in a small number of academic discussions and blogs. It is not widely standardized, definitions vary, and it is not commonly recognized in standard logic textbooks.

Typically loogikates is described as involving three features: the use of a seemingly valid logical form, the reliance on ambiguous language or equivocation, and contextual manipulation such as presupposition or scope-shifting that obscures a conclusion not entailed by the premises. These elements together can make a weak or misleading argument appear stronger than it is without overt fallacies being explicit.

In scholarship and debate, loogikates is treated as a descriptive label for a family of rhetorical moves rather than a single formal rule. Some authors use it as a lens for analyzing informal arguments, while others caution that the label can conflate logical validity with rhetorical effectiveness and may be misused to dismiss arguments that are legitimately reasoned.

Related concepts include logical fallacy, informal logic, rhetorical devices, equivocation, and presupposition. Further study is uneven, and the term remains one of several niche classifiers used to dissect complex argumentative practices.