Using threats, force, intimidation, or negative consequences to persuade someone to accept a conclusion, rather than providing logical reasons or evidence for the claim.

Arguing that a claim is true or good because many or most people believe it, accept it, or do it, rather than providing independent evidence for the claim's validity.

Justifying an action, practice, or belief as acceptable or correct solely because it's commonly done or widely practiced, without examining whether the practice is actually justified or ethical.

Repeating a claim or argument over and over, often with increasing volume or frequency, in the hope that repetition alone will make it seem true or convincing, rather than providing new evidence or reasoning.

Arguing that a claim is more likely to be true, or a position more likely to be correct, because it is associated with wealth, expensive items, or wealthy individuals, rather than evaluating the claim on its merits.

Responding to valid criticism or refutation by becoming more entrenched in the original position rather than engaging with the counterargument, often through emotional rejection, ad hominem attacks, or doubling down on claims without additional evidence. The fallacy involves treating criticism as a personal attack requiring defense rather than as information requiring evaluation.

Arguing that harmful actions should be excused, justified, or go unpunished because the actor had reduced capacity, was impaired, or faced difficult circumstances, while failing to establish that the impairment was sufficient to eliminate moral or logical responsibility, or applying this excuse inconsistently. The fallacy involves treating any reduction in capacity as complete elimination of responsibility.

Arguing that because science or natural explanations cannot currently or fully explain a phenomenon, it must therefore be explained by God, supernatural forces, or divine intervention. This fallacy treats the absence of a complete natural explanation as positive evidence for a supernatural one.

Applying different standards, criteria, or levels of rigor to similar cases based on irrelevant factors such as personal preference, group membership, or desired outcome rather than on principled distinctions. This involves holding one person, group, or claim to strict standards while giving similar persons, groups, or claims much more lenient treatment without adequate justification for the difference.

Arguing that effort, hard work, or good intentions should be valued as highly as or instead of actual results, outcomes, or effectiveness. This fallacy treats the amount of effort expended as sufficient justification for a claim, policy, or approach, regardless of whether it actually achieves its stated goals or produces positive outcomes.

Reducing questions about what exists or what is real (ontology) to questions about what can be known or measured (epistemology). This fallacy assumes that reality is limited to what we can know, measure, or verify, treating the limits of knowledge as limits of existence. It conflates 'we cannot know X' with 'X does not exist' or 'X is not real.'

Arguing that things, people, or groups inherently or essentially possess certain characteristics, when those characteristics are actually contingent, contextual, socially constructed, or historically produced. This fallacy treats current, changeable, or situational attributes as if they were fixed, inherent essences that define what something fundamentally is.

Arguing that the original or etymological meaning of a word determines its current meaning, or that understanding a word's etymology reveals the true nature of what it refers to. This fallacy assumes that a word's history constrains its present usage or that earlier meanings are somehow more valid or revealing than current ones.