Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Dismissing someone's argument because their behavior contradicts it.

Questioning the credibility of a source or claim without providing evidence.

Preemptively presenting negative information about someone to discredit their future statements.

Using damaging allegations to undermine a person's reputation.

Assuming a single cause for a complex issue.

Discrediting an idea by linking it to a disliked group or person.

Blaming a person or group for problems they did not cause.

Projecting positive or negative qualities of one thing onto another to make it accepted or rejected.

Deflecting criticism by pointing to a different issue.

Provoking outrage to bypass rational evaluation of an argument.

Building support by instilling anxiety or panic in the audience.

Evoking sympathy to win support rather than using logical arguments.

Flattering the audience to gain acceptance of a claim.

Overstating facts or claims to create a stronger emotional response.

Exploiting patriotic or group feelings to justify or promote an action.

Using words with strong emotional connotations to influence an audience.

Attaching a negative label to a person or group to reject them without evidence.

Removing a statement or event from its original context to distort its meaning.

Using mild or indirect language to obscure the severity or nature of something.

Attributing a statement to someone who did not say it, or quoting out of context.

Creating an illusion of widespread agreement that does not exist.

Presenting real numbers in a deceptive way (wrong base rate, cherry-picked timeframe).

Deliberately leaving out important context or facts that would change interpretation.

Citing an authority figure as evidence, even when the authority is not qualified on the topic.

Arguing something is good because it is 'natural' or bad because it is 'unnatural'.

Persuading the audience by suggesting that many people already support the idea.

Presenting only two options when more exist.

Using the conclusion as a premise — the claim proves itself.

Assuming causation from correlation or temporal sequence.

Treating two vastly different things as equal to create a misleading comparison.

Drawing broad conclusions from a small or unrepresentative sample.

Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.

Arguing that one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without evidence.

Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

Dismissing criticism by pointing out the accuser does the same thing.

Arguing something is right because it has always been done that way.

Placing the most newsworthy information deep in the article to minimize its impact.

Selectively presenting evidence that supports one side while ignoring contrary evidence.

Presenting fringe or debunked views as equal to well-supported ones.

Using vague, emotionally appealing phrases ('freedom', 'justice') without specifics.

Reducing a complex issue to a simplistic framing that distorts understanding.

Repeating a message until it is accepted as truth.

Using a brief, striking phrase to provoke an emotional reaction.

Using a trite phrase to end debate ('it is what it is', 'agree to disagree').