The straw man fallacy purposely distorts an opponent's argument, making it easier to refute. By misrepresenting the original position, the arguer avoids addressing the real issue.

Ad hominem attacks shift focus from the argument to the individual's character. This strategy undermines logical debate by avoiding engagement with the actual point.

A false dilemma restricts the options available by presenting only two choices when more exist. This oversimplification forces a binary choice that may not capture the full complexity of the issue.

The appeal to ignorance assumes a claim is correct just because there is no evidence against it. It dismisses the need for positive evidence in support of the assertion.

The bandwagon fallacy relies on the popularity of a belief as evidence for its truth. It discourages critical evaluation by suggesting that widespread acceptance equates to correctness.

A false analogy draws a comparison between two situations that differ in critical aspects. The fallacy lies in assuming that similarities in one area extend to all aspects of the compared scenarios.

The slippery slope fallacy asserts that a minor action will trigger a cascade of adverse events without substantiating the logical connection. This reasoning exaggerates the consequences, often ignoring intervening factors.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc mistakes correlation for causation by assuming that sequential events have a direct causal link. This fallacy overlooks other possible explanations or contributing factors.

Circular reasoning occurs when the argument's premises depend on the truth of the conclusion, effectively going in circles. This provides no solid evidence because it assumes what it is supposed to prove.

A red herring introduces an unrelated topic to divert attention from the main argument. By shifting focus, it prevents a proper analysis of the original issue.

The appeal to emotion fallacy manipulates feelings in order to win an argument, rather than relying on logical reasoning. It diverts scrutiny from the lack of evidence with sentimental rhetoric.

An appeal to tradition maintains that something is better or true because it is older or has always been done that way. This fallacy relies on historical acceptance rather than current evidence or reasoning.

The fallacy of composition involves inferring that something true of an individual part is true of the whole group or system. It mistakes the properties of the parts for properties of the entire structure.

Hasty generalization is when a broad conclusion is drawn from a small or atypical sample. This fallacy fails to account for the broader context or additional evidence that might contradict the conclusion.

The genetic fallacy judges the value of a claim based solely on its origin or source rather than assessing its validity. This approach neglects the argument's content, focusing instead on where it came from.

Guilt by association discredits a proposal by linking it with a negatively viewed group instead of evaluating its actual merits. This approach sidesteps the real issues by focusing on associations rather than evidence.

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy redefines a group in order to exclude counterexamples that challenge a generalization. By asserting that no true member would behave in a certain way, the arguer avoids addressing valid exceptions.

A loaded question is structured to contain an unwarranted assumption that forces the respondent into a corner. It misleadingly implies guilt or a position without providing a fair basis for discussion.

An appeal to consequences assumes that if adopting a belief leads to negative outcomes, then the belief must be false. This reasoning mistakenly evaluates an idea based on its potential effects rather than on evidence.

Equivocation exploits the multiple meanings of a key term, leading to confusion in the argument. This fallacy misleads the audience by shifting the meaning of words during the discussion.