every fallacy in debates EVER, list them all in the world

Answer 1

Debates and discussions can be plagued by a variety of logical fallacies—errors in reasoning that weaken arguments. Below is an extensive list of many common and not-so-common logical fallacies that can occur in debates:

1. **Ad Hominem**: Attacking the person instead of addressing the argument.
2. **Straw Man**: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
3. **Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)**: Arguing that a claim is true because it hasn't been proven false.
4. **False Dichotomy (False Dilemma)**: Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when others exist.
5. **Slippery Slope**: Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (negative) events.
6. **Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)**: When the conclusion is included in the premise of the argument.
7. **Hasty Generalization**: Making a broad generalization based on a small, unrepresentative sample.
8. **Red Herring**: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
9. **Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)**: Justifying a claim by citing an authority who isn't an expert on the issue.
10. **Bandwagon (Appeal to Popularity/Argumentum ad Populum)**: Arguing that something is right because it's popular.
11. **False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)**: Assuming that because one thing follows another, it was also caused by it.
12. **Equivocation**: Using a word in two different senses in an argument, leading to a misleading conclusion.
13. **Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Passiones)**: Manipulating an emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.
14. **No True Scotsman**: Dismissing relevant criticisms or flaws in a claim by asserting that no true member of the group would do such a thing.
15. **Tu Quoque (You Too / Appeal to Hypocrisy)**: Discrediting an argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent.
16. **Burden of Proof**: Asserting that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove it.
17. **False Analogy**: Making a misleading comparison between two things that aren't truly comparable.
18. **Faulty Generalization**: Making a general statement based on incomplete or biased evidence.
19. **Middle Ground**: Assuming that the middle position between two extremes must be correct.
20. **Composition Fallacy**: Assuming that what's true for the parts must be true for the whole.
21. **Division Fallacy**: Assuming that what's true for the whole must be true for its parts.
22. **Genetic Fallacy**: Judging something as good or bad based on its origin rather than its current state or context.
23. **Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem)**: Arguing that something is right because it has always been done a certain way.
24. **Appeal to Novelty (Argumentum ad Novitatem)**: Arguing that something is superior because it is new or modern.
25. **Loaded Question**: Asking a question that contains a presupposition, making it difficult to answer without accepting this presupposition.
26. **Gambler's Fallacy**: Believing that past events can affect the probabilities in random events.
27. **Appeal to Nature**: Arguing that something is good or right because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural.
28. **Appeal to Consequences**: Arguing that a belief is false because it implies a negative consequence.
29. **Cherry Picking**: Selecting data or evidence that supports your argument while ignoring data that contradicts it.
30. **Subjectivist Fallacy**: Asserting that something is true for one person but not for others, without objective evidence.
31. **Moralistic Fallacy**: Assuming that the world as it is should conform to how we believe it ought to be.
32. **Naturalistic Fallacy**: Confusing factual statements with value judgments.
33. **Non Sequitur**: A conclusion that does not follow logically from the premises.
34. **Reification (Hypostatization)**: Treating an abstract concept as if it were a real, concrete thing.
35. **Special Pleading**: Making an exception when your claim is shown to be false.
36. **Relativist Fallacy**: Claiming that something is true for one person but not for someone else, in a context where objective truth is at issue.
37. **Base Rate Fallacy**: Ignoring the base rate (general frequency) of an event when evaluating specific information.
38. **Affirming the Consequent**: Assuming that because the consequent is true, the antecedent must be true.
39. **Denying the Antecedent**: Assuming that because the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false.
40. **Argument from Incredulity (Appeal to Disbelief)**: Assuming that because something is difficult to understand, it's not true.

This list includes a wide variety of logical fallacies, though it is by no means exhaustive. Critical thinking and familiarity with these fallacies can go a long way in improving the quality of debates and discussions.