These are the 67 Logical Fallacies in a Debate.

1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument instead of

addressing the argument itself.
2. Straw Man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating someone’s argument to
make it easier to attack.
3. Tu Quoque: Dismissing someone’s argument by pointing out that they
themselves have done the thing they are arguing against.
4. Appeal to Authority: Using the opinion or expertise of a person as
evidence for an argument, even if they are not qualified in that
particular field.
5. Appeal to Tradition: Claiming that something is true or valid because it
has always been done that way.
6. Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating the emotions of the audience in order
to win an argument, rather than using logical reasoning.
7. Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing that a proposition is true because it has
not been proven false, or vice versa.
8. False Dilemma: Presenting only two options when there are actually
more available, and forcing a choice between them.
9. Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic or argument to divert
attention from the main issue.
10. Slippery Slope: Claiming that a small or insignificant action will
lead to major or extreme consequences.
11. Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion of an argument as one
of the premises, thereby assuming the truth of what you are trying to
prove.
12. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient
or limited evidence.
13. Bandwagon Fallacy: Arguing that something is true or valid
because it is popular or widely accepted.
14. False Cause: Assuming that because one event follows another,
the first event must have caused the second.
15. Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing someone’s argument based solely on
their origin or background.
16. Fallacy of Composition: Assuming that what is true for the parts
must also be true for the whole.
17. Fallacy of Division: Assuming that what is true for the whole must
also be true for the parts.
18. Appeal to Fear: Using fear or threats to persuade someone to
accept an argument.
19. Appeal to Pity: Using pity or sympathy to persuade someone to
accept an argument.
20. Appeal to Popularity: Arguing that something is true or valid
because it is believed by many people.
21. Appeal to Consequences: Arguing that something must be true
or false based on the positive or negative consequences of accepting
or rejecting it.
22. Equivocation: Using a term with multiple meanings and switching
between them in order to mislead or deceive.
23. False Analogy: Arguing that because two things are similar in
some ways, they must be similar in other ways as well.
24. Loaded Question: Asking a question that contains an unjustified
or unwarranted assumption.
25. No True Scotsman: Dismissing any Counterexample or exception
to a claim by redefining the criteria of the claim.
26. Biased Generalization: Making a generalization based on a
biased or unrepresentative sample.
27. Post Hoc Fallacy: Assuming that because one event follows
another, the first event must have caused the second.
28. Cherry Picking: Selectively choosing evidence that supports your
argument while ignoring or dismissing contrary evidence.
29. Gambler’s Fallacy: Believing that previous outcomes will
influence future outcomes in a random situation.
30. Appeal to Nature: Arguing that something is good or right
because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is
unnatural.
31. Fallacy of Sunk Costs: Continuing with a course of action because
of previously invested resources, even though it is no longer rational.
32. Black-or-White Fallacy: Presenting only two extreme options as if
they are the only possibilities, ignoring any middle ground.
33. False Attribution: Attributing an argument or opinion to someone
who did not actually make that argument or hold that opinion.
34. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Cherry-picking data points after the
fact to fit a particular pattern or conclusion.
35. Nirvana Fallacy: Dismissing a realistic option or solution because
it is not perfect or ideal.
36. False Equivalence: Claiming that two things are equal or
comparable when they are not.
37. Moving the Goalposts: Continually changing the criteria or
standards of an argument or debate in order to avoid addressing the
original issue.
38. Fallacy of Middle Ground: Assuming that the truth must lie
between two extremes, without considering other possibilities.
39. Fallacy of False Authority: Accepting a claim because it is made
by someone who is seen as an authority, even though they are not
qualified in that particular field.
40. Appeal to Incredulity: Dismissing an argument simply because it
is difficult to believe.
41. Fallacy of Personal Incredulity: Dismissing an argument simply
because you personally find it difficult to believe.
42. Anecdotal Fallacy: Using personal anecdotes or isolated
examples as evidence for a general conclusion.
43. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence: Ignoring or suppressing
evidence that contradicts your argument.
44. False Consensus Effect: Assuming that because most people
agree on something, it must be true or valid.
45. Two Wrongs Make a Right: Believing that if one wrong action is
done, it justifies another wrong action.
46. Bulverism: Assuming someone’s argument is wrong because of
their motives or personal circumstances.
47. Fallacy of Relevance: Presenting information or arguments that
are not actually relevant to the main issue.
48. Fallacy of Ambiguity: Using language that is intentionally vague
or unclear in order to mislead or confuse.
49. Fallacy of False Cause: Assuming that because one event follows
another, the first event must have caused the second.
50. Fallacy of False Dichotomy: Presenting only two options when
there are actually more available, and falsely claiming that these are
the only possible choices.
51. Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison: Making a comparison between
two things that are not actually comparable.
52. Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence: Drawing a conclusion based on
incomplete or insufficient evidence.
53. Fallacy of Inconsistent Comparison: Making inconsistent or
contradictory comparisons.
54. Fallacy of Insufficient Evidence: Drawing a conclusion without
providing enough evidence to support it.
 55. Fallacy of Single Cause: Assuming that a complex problem or
event has only one cause.
56. Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample: Drawing a conclusion based
on a sample that is not representative of the population as a whole.
57. Fallacy of Misleading Vividness: Assuming that an event or
example that is vivid or memorable is more representative or likely
than it actually is.
58. Fallacy of Burden of Proof: Shifting the burden of proof onto the
other party, insisting that they must prove their claim while not
providing evidence for your own claim.
59. Fallacy of Loaded Language: Using emotionally charged language
to manipulate or sway the audience's opinion.
60. Fallacy of Misleading Statistics: Manipulating statistics or data in
a way that misrepresents the true nature of the situation.
61. Fallacy of Non Sequitur: Drawing a conclusion that does not
logically follow from the premises.
62. Fallacy of Overgeneralization: Drawing a conclusion that is too
broad or general based on a limited number of observations or
evidence.
63. Fallacy of Special Pleading: Applying different standards or
making special exceptions to support your own argument.
64. Fallacy of Tautology: Making a statement that is true by definition
or by repeating the premise in a different form.
65. Fallacy of Wishful Thinking: Believing that something must be
true or valid because you want it to be true.
66. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence: Ignoring or suppressing
evidence that contradicts your argument.
67. Fallacy of Composition and Division: Assuming that what is true
for the whole must also be true for the parts, or vice versa.

The importance of learning these Fallacies are so that we’re able to

understand the points of our enemy without the miss points/baised
claims/opinions in the argument for better reasonings.