|I am going to put up some information about logical fallacies here because so many people will run into atheists, unbelievers and alternative believers who label what believers say with these fallacies.
The believer must remember that logical fallacies have no divine or actual secular authority, were written by humans to dictate what could/can or could not/cannot be said in a discussion. If you want to boil it down to just the nuts and bolts, logical fallacies are a tool of evil to hide from the truth of scriptures and God.
Believers need to be aware of them so they know what is being said to them. If yo want to try and structure your arguments according to the logical fallacies you may find that to be impossible as there are so many of them which cover a lot of territory which in turn blocks the believer from presenting any argument at all.
I will be copying and pasting information so you can see what the logical fallacies are, their origin and hopefully other important details which will help you in your discussions with those who do not believe.
Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book On Sophistical Refutations.
However, Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning, which is an important preliminary piece of field work before naming and cataloging. Plato’s “Euthydemus” preserves a collection of fallacious arguments in dialogue form, putting the perhaps exaggerated examples into the mouths of two sophists, that is, itinerant teachers of rhetoric. For this reason, fallacious arguments are sometimes called “sophisms” and bad reasoning “sophistry”. Aristotle refers to a few of these examples as instances of his named fallacies.
In the centuries since Plato and Aristotle, many great philosophers and logicians have contributed to fallacy studies, among them John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Arthur Schopenhauer. Last century, an Australian philosopher, logician, and computer scientist, Charles L. Hamblin, wrote the highly-influential book Fallacies, which is unfortunately hard to obtain nowadays.
The first half of Fallacies is a history of the general concept of logical fallacy and the development of particular named fallacies. However, the most influential part of the book was probably the first chapter, which criticized the “standard treatment” of fallacies―that is, their discussion in textbooks of the time―and his criticisms seem to have inspired much subsequent research. Of less lasting influence were Hamblin’s efforts, in the latter part of the book, to develop a formal treatment of dialectical argument as a basis for a theory of fallacies.
II. Definition Of A Logical Fallacy—Ibid
A “fallacy” is a mistake, and a “logical” fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as “fallacies”. However, The Fallacy Files is specifically concerned with logical errors, not factual ones.
A logical error is a mistake in an argument, that is, a mistake in an instance of reasoning formulated in language. As the term is used in logic, an “argument” is a group of statements one of which is called “the conclusion” and the rest are called “premisses”―by the way, I spell “premiss” with two esses instead of one, for reasons explained in the Glossary; in other words, this is not a spelling mistake.
That link gives you what looks like a complete list of the so-called logical fallacies and you can see why trying to structure your arguments according to them are almost impossible especially when the unbeliever you are talking to applies them arbitrarily, whether they apply to the discussion or not.
Here is a short list taken from the following link– http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
And you can click on that link to get all the details you need.
1. Ad Hominem Argument: Also, “personal attack,” “poisoning the well.” The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., “He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says.” See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
2. Appeal to Heaven: (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one’s own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., “God ordered me to kill my children,” or “We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.”) A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history.
3. Appeal to Tradition: (also “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has “always” been that way, because people have “always” thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations). (E.g., “In America, women have always been paid less, so let’s not mess with long-standing tradition.”). The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the “Appeal to Novelty,” e.g., “It’s NEW, and [therefore it must be] good, or improved!”
4. Begging the Question (also Circular Reasoning): Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent spiritual crisis in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A corrupt argument from logos. See also “Big Lie technique.”
5. Lying with Statistics: Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. “College tuition costs have never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, getting a college education is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth, Snow Job, and Red Herring.)
6. Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out purple five-dollar bills! Purple!”). (See also Red Herring.)
Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge of why God is doing certain things. E.g., “This week’s earthquake was sent to punish those people for their great wickedness.”
7. Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., “In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I’ll cut your taxes!”
8. Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance) A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See? You can’t! That means what I say is true.”
9. Straw Man (also “The Straw Person”): The fallacy of setting up a phony, ridiculous version of an opponent’s argument and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand. E.g., “Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!”
Or, “Pro-choicers hate babies!” Or, “Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!”
10 Testimonial (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority): A fallacy in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid to make the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internet-shouldn’t you?”). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the
official taco sauce of the Winter Olympics!”) This is a corrupted argument from ethos.
This list is only meant to give you an idea of the logical fallacies in use in discussions and is not meant to be exhaustive
IV. More Information On Logical Fallacies– http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric…
There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies…
Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion…
Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.
All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.
Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”…
Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called fallacious.
If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not fallacious; their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies are of just this kind. It’s therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors…
Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption.
Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems.
Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw man fallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways.
Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma or circular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.
These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in any category; others belong in two or three. The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, for example, could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of “Scotsman”) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence).