Dismissing or minimizing a problem by pointing to other problems that are supposedly worse. The argument suggests that because more severe problems exist, the current problem doesn't matter or shouldn't be addressed.

Responding to criticism or an argument by deflecting to a different issue, often one involving the critic or their group, rather than addressing the original point. Uses 'what about' rhetorical structure to shift focus.

Attempting to justify a wrongful act by pointing to another wrongful act, suggesting that because someone else did something wrong or because the practice is common, it's acceptable. Argues that precedent or others' bad behavior legitimizes the current behavior.

Arguing that something is morally wrong or should be prohibited simply because it provokes disgust, without providing actual ethical reasoning. Treats visceral revulsion as sufficient justification for moral or policy conclusions.

Arguing that someone is right or wrong, credible or not credible, based primarily on their age rather than the merit of their argument or evidence. Can manifest as either dismissing younger people as inexperienced or older people as out-of-touch, or conversely, assuming age grants automatic wisdom or that youth provides special insight.

Using events, patterns, or outcomes from fictional narratives (novels, films, TV shows, thought experiments) as evidence for claims about how the real world works. This treats imagined scenarios crafted for narrative purposes as if they were empirical data about actual human behavior, social dynamics, or causal relationships.

Invoking divine or supernatural intervention specifically to explain phenomena that currently lack complete scientific explanation, treating gaps in current knowledge as evidence for supernatural causation. This argument asserts that because science cannot (yet) explain X, therefore God (or supernatural forces) must be the explanation.

Dismissing or denying the heroic, admirable, or exemplary status of individuals because they had flaws, made mistakes, or failed to be perfect in all aspects of their character or behavior. This fallacy treats the existence of any moral blemish or character flaw as disqualifying someone from being considered heroic, admirable, or worth emulating.

Arguing that everyone is heroic, exceptional, or extraordinary, thereby eliminating meaningful distinctions between different levels of achievement, courage, or excellence. This reasoning treats exceptional status as something that can be universally distributed without losing its meaning, insisting that recognizing some people as heroes requires recognizing everyone as heroes.

Assuming that historical actors had access to information, understood context, or could foresee consequences that only became clear later or are known to us in hindsight. This fallacy judges past decisions as if the decision-makers possessed our current knowledge, understanding how events would unfold, or had access to information that was unavailable or unknowable at the time.

Arguing that particular historical events or outcomes were inevitable - that they had to happen as they did and could not have unfolded differently. This treats history as following a predetermined path where specific events, social changes, or outcomes were bound to occur regardless of choices, contingencies, or chance events.

Attempting to explain a phenomenon by positing an internal agent or mechanism that has the very same capabilities or properties that require explanation. This creates an explanatory regress where the explanation requires the same kind of explanation as the original phenomenon, typically by invoking a 'little man inside' (homunculus) who possesses the abilities we're trying to explain.

Treating the identity, group membership, or demographic characteristics of the person making an argument as relevant to the logical validity or factual accuracy of the argument itself. This reasoning validates or invalidates claims based on whether the speaker belongs to particular identity groups rather than on the evidence and logic presented.

Overestimating how well others can understand your internal mental states, intentions, or emotions based on your external behavior or expressions. This fallacy involves assuming that what feels obvious or transparent to you about your own thoughts and feelings is equally obvious to others observing you, leading to failures of communication when you believe you've conveyed something that others haven't actually understood.

Systematically overestimating the intensity or duration of emotional reactions to future events, both positive and negative. This involves predicting that future outcomes will have much stronger and longer-lasting effects on happiness or well-being than they actually do, failing to account for adaptation, coping mechanisms, and the influence of other life factors.

Systematically evaluating ideas, arguments, or evidence differently based on whether they come from or benefit one's own group (in-group) versus other groups (out-groups). This involves applying different standards of scrutiny, automatically favoring positions associated with one's group, or dismissing arguments based on their association with opposing groups rather than their actual merit.