Argument fallacies

straw man

misrepresenting your argument into an easier/weaker version, then attacking that instead

ad hominem

attacking the person instead of addressing their argument

red herring

introducing something irrelevant that distracts from the actual point

appeal to popularity/bandwagon

treating widespread agreement as proof that something is correct

false dilemma/false dichotomy

pretending there are only two options when there are more

hasty generalization

drawing broad conclusion from too little evidence

slippery slope

claiming one step will inevitably lead to increasingly extreme consequences without showing why

circular reasoning

the conclusion being used as its own evidence

begging the question

sneaking the disputed conclusion into the premise -- closely related to circular reasoning

appeal to authority

treating an authority's opinion as conclusive evidence when it isn't— or when they're not actually an authority on that subject

appeal to emotion

using fear, pity, anger, etc. as a substitute for evidence

appeal to tradition

arguing that something is better because it's always been done that way

appeal to nature

assuming natural = good and artificial = bad

to quoque/appeal to hypocrisy

responding to criticism by accusing the critic of similar behavior rather than answering the criticism

whataboutism

redirecting criticism toward some other comparable problem

Moving the goalpost

once you meet someone's standard for evidence, they demand a new standard

no true scotsman

redefining a group to protect a claim from counterexamples

genetic fallacy

rejecting a claim because of who/where it came from rather than examining the claim

guilt by association

treating someone's association with a person/group as evidence that they share that group's flaws

equivocation

switching between different meanings of the same word mid-argument

cherry picking

selecting only the evidence that supports your position while ignoring relevant evidence against it

anecdotal fallacy

treating one personal experience as stronger evidence than broader data

post hoc/ false cause

assuming that because B happened after A, A caused B--- correlation doesn't equal causation

burden-of-proof-shifting

making a claim and then insisiting everyone else must disprove it

argument from ignorance

nobody has proven this false therefore its true or vice versa

motte and baily

someone makes a strong controversial claim, gets challenged, retreats to a weaker obviously defensible claim, then later acts as though the stronger claim survived

argument by psychologizing

instead of addressing the argument someone invents a motive or emotional defect to explain why you said it