This document defines and provides examples of various logical fallacies related to rebutting arguments. It discusses fallacies of denying, ignoring, or trivializing counterevidence. It also examines ad hominem fallacies involving personal attacks or irrelevant personal characteristics of a speaker. Additionally, it outlines fallacies of diversion where the discussion is shifted to irrelevant side issues or misrepresentations to avoid the original topic.

1. Includes:
fallacies of counterevidence
Ad hominem fallacies
Fallacies of diversion
rebuttal criterion fal

2. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
You have put forward some interesting evidence
which is great for the statisticians listening, but we are
here to talk about real world issues.
Why is this a fallacy?
Your argument must consider the evidence and things
that work against it If you intend for it to be robust and
reasonable.
2 – Sub category: fallacies of counter evidence
3 – Fallacy Name: denying the counterevidence

3. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
Though you say that there is overwhelming evidence
I will choose to discuss only those pieces of
anecdotal evidence that my constituents have put
forward.
Why is this a fallacy?
Your argument should be strong enough to counter
and consider the counterevidence.
2 – Sub category: fallacies of counter evidence
3 – Fallacy Name: ignoring the counterevidence

4. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
I believe you have divorced your wife recently, so are
we to trust your opinions on this argument on
marriage equality?
Why is this a fallacy?
Attacking your opponent does not actually relate to
the quality or strength of their argument and its just
kind of mean.
2 – Sub category: ad hominem fallacies
3 – Fallacy Name: abusive ad hominem
4 – Alternate Names: ‘refutation by character’,
‘arguing the man’.

5. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
Your opinions on rape culture are irrelevant because
you are a man.
Why is this a fallacy?
Everyone has a right to state an opinion regardless of
their personal circumstances.
2 – Sub category: ad hominem fallacies
3 – Fallacy Name: poisoning the well
4 – Alternate Names: ‘discrediting’, ‘smear tactics’.

6. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
You have publically denounced people who travel by
uber rather than taxi yet you were snapped taking an
uber from the airport to your home.
Why is this a fallacy?
Your opponent has a right to have their personal
details left out of a debate and the fact they may have
done something is not a very robust argument.
2 – Sub category: ad hominem fallacies
3 – Fallacy Name: two-wrongs fallacy

7. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
You have said that there should be stricter policies on
immigrants arriving by boat, which means you want to
‘turn back the boats’.
Why is this a fallacy?
A well developed argument is a complex thing and
reducing an argument to a single word or phrase of
course makes it easier to attack.
2 – Sub category: fallacies of diversion
3 – Fallacy Name: attacking a straw man

8. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
You have spoken in great detail about the many
victims of the bush fire, however, john smith was
actually from Wollongong not Townsville as you said
in your description of his personal story.
Why is this a fallacy?
It usually means overlooking large parts of an
argument in favour of minor details.
2 – Sub category: fallacies of diversion
3 – Fallacy Name: trivial objections
4 – Alternate Names: ‘hair-splitting’, ‘banal
objections’.

9. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
Though it may seem that you have presented a clear
and compelling argument have we though about the
side-issue of cat ownership?
Why is this a fallacy?
It draws the audience away from the key issues.
2 – Sub category: fallacies of diversion
3 – Fallacy Name: red herring
4 – Alternate Names: ‘ignoratio elenchi’,
‘misdirection’.

10. 1 – Category: rebuttal criterion
Example
Great debating, but now for a joke, what do you get
when you cross an Irishman with a horse? You, you
dumb shmuck!
Why is this a fallacy?
NOT ALL HUMOUR IN AN ARGUMENT IS BAD, BUT
IF IT IS PURPOSEFULLY BEIGN USED TO
DISTRACT THE LISTENERS THEN THAT IS NOT
REASONABLE.
2 – Sub category: fallacies of diversion
3 – Fallacy Name: resort to humour or ridicule
4 – Alternate Names: ‘reduction ad ridiculum’