Substitution
Straw man
Replacing a claim or position with a weaker, distorted version and then refuting the substitute.
CheckAsk whether the response addresses the proposition actually made.Wikipedia reference →Reasoning, rhetoric and evidence
Vocabulary
Know the move.
Return to the claim.
A practical guide to common tactics that can obscure a proposition, misdirect a debate, weaken a decision or prevent action. Naming a tactic or bottleneck does not settle the underlying question; the claim or choice still has to be examined.
Editorial principle
Identify the proposition audiences are being asked to believe.
Ignore an unsupported straw man, motive allegation, loaded premise or rhetorical contrast when it is not the factual proposition under review. Preserve genuine qualifiers, inspect the evidence, and attach the verdict to the central checkable claim.
Reference guide
Debate, reasoning and decision traps
The Paralysis family follows the practical sequence from analysing and choosing through planning, doing and finishing. These labels describe bottlenecks, not medical diagnoses.
Substitution
Substitution
Motte-and-bailey
Advancing a bold claim, retreating to a modest and easier-to-defend claim when challenged, then returning to the bold version.
CheckKeep the original and fallback propositions separate.Wikipedia reference →Substitution
Equivocation
Using a word in different senses during the same argument so the conclusion appears to follow.
CheckReplace the disputed word with a precise definition each time it appears.Wikipedia reference →Substitution
False equivalence
Treating materially different acts, claims or bodies of evidence as though they were meaningfully equal.
CheckCompare scale, evidence, context and consequences—not surface resemblance.Wikipedia reference →Distraction
Distraction
Red herring
Introducing an irrelevant issue that diverts attention from the proposition under examination.
CheckRestate the unanswered claim before considering the new topic.Wikipedia reference →Distraction
Ad hominem
Attacking a person or their circumstances instead of addressing their argument or evidence.
CheckA source's incentives can affect credibility, but they do not by themselves disprove a claim.Wikipedia reference →Distraction
Tu quoque / whataboutism
Deflecting criticism by alleging hypocrisy or pointing to another person's wrongdoing.
CheckThe comparison may deserve its own assessment, but it does not answer the original claim.Wikipedia reference →Distraction
Appeal to motive
Treating a claim as false by asserting that its speaker has a suspect or concealed motive.
CheckAssess the proposition first; assess an alleged motive only when it is specific and evidenced.Wikipedia reference →Evidence
Evidence
Cherry picking
Selecting evidence that supports a conclusion while withholding relevant evidence that points another way.
CheckCheck the full time range, comparison group, dataset and contrary findings.Wikipedia reference →Evidence
Appeal to authority
Treating a proposition as established because an authority endorses it, without examining relevant expertise or supporting evidence.
CheckExpertise must match the subject, and the underlying evidence still matters.Wikipedia reference →Evidence
Appeal to popularity
Presenting widespread belief or electoral popularity as proof that a factual proposition is true.
CheckPopularity measures acceptance, not factual accuracy.Wikipedia reference →Evidence
Appeal to ignorance
Claiming something is true because it has not been disproved, or false because it has not been proved.
CheckIdentify who bears the burden of proof and what evidence would satisfy it.Wikipedia reference →Evidence
Circular reasoning
Using the conclusion being asserted as part of the proof offered for that conclusion.
CheckAsk whether any premise is independently supported.Wikipedia reference →Causation
Causation
Post hoc
Inferring that one event caused another merely because it happened first.
CheckLook for a mechanism, controls, alternative causes and evidence beyond timing.Wikipedia reference →Causation
Slippery slope
Claiming that a first step will trigger an escalating chain of consequences without establishing the links.
CheckTest every step in the proposed causal chain separately.Wikipedia reference →Pressure
Pressure
False dilemma
Presenting two choices as exhaustive when other plausible options exist.
CheckList the omitted alternatives before accepting the forced choice.Wikipedia reference →Pressure
Loaded question
A question containing an unproved assumption that a direct answer would appear to concede.
CheckSeparate and test the embedded premise before answering.Wikipedia reference →Pressure
Moving the goalposts
Changing the evidentiary standard after the requested evidence has been supplied.
CheckRecord the original criterion and require a reason for changing it.Wikipedia reference →Pressure
Gish gallop
Presenting many weak or unsupported assertions faster than they can be checked or answered.
CheckBreak the list into claims and require evidence for each one.Wikipedia reference →Pressure
Argument by repetition
Repeating a proposition until familiarity is mistaken for corroboration.
CheckCount independent evidence, not the number of times the assertion appears.Wikipedia reference →Process ParalysisWhere are we stuck?
Stage 1
Analysis paralysis
Keeps gathering or comparing because one more fact might change the answer.
CheckSet criteria, identify decision-changing facts, and give analysis a deadline.Reference →Stage 2
Decision paralysis
Understands the options but cannot commit because every choice carries uncertainty or loss.
CheckSeparate reversible choices; name the decision owner and date.Reference →Stage 3
Planning paralysis
Has chosen a direction but keeps refining the plan instead of naming the first action.
CheckChoose the next observable step; revise after real feedback.Reference →Stage 4
Execution paralysis
Knows the plan and next step but does not begin or continue.
CheckShrink and time-box the next concrete action.Reference →Stage 5
Completion paralysis
Starts the work but resists finishing or sharing it through endless revision.
CheckDefine done; separate necessary correction from optional polishing.Reference →Further reading
Broader fallacy catalogues
The terminology is a diagnostic aid, not a shortcut to a verdict. California State University, Northridge provides a wider debate-oriented catalogue, while Wikipedia maintains a broad index of formal and informal fallacies.