X has always been done. Therefore X is right.

Claim something to be well-established and proven. Say that it is traditional, and that to change it would be sacrilegious or very wrong in some way.

Appeal to consequences is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

1. I want something to be true and factual.
2. Therefore it is true and factual.

To think wishfully, just act as if what you want is true and either has happened or is about to happen.

The informal fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor.

Example:

Tesla is the best car from Earth because Elon Musk is the richest man on Earth.

A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking one's opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.

Attacking the Person is a form of distraction, forcing them into defending themself and away from their argument. Most people, when personally attacked, respond with a fight-or-flight reaction and so either jump to their own defense or cognitively flee (and in doing so, drop any argument they are making).

Attacking people in public frames you as an aggressive person who attacks those who oppose you. Other people there will consequently be less likely to attack you or use strong arguments against you, for fear of being attacked by you, hence strengthening your power position.

A sub-division: Abusive Ad Hominem is where the person is attacked and discredited. Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs where an excuse is made for the person which negates their argument due to some special circumstances, such as the role they have.

The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. If a proposition has not yet been proven true, one is not entitled to conclude, solely on that basis, that it is false, and if a proposition has not yet been proven false, one is not entitled to conclude, solely on that basis, that it is true.

Nothing is known about A. Yet a conclusion is drawn about A.

Facts may be given all around a particular subject, yet nothing specific is said about the subject. Based on this circumstantial evidence, it is assumed that something may be known about A.

A variant occurs where a lack of evidence is assumed to be proof, for example when a murder suspect does not have an alibi.

The informal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after Lazarus, a beggar in a New Testament parable who receives his reward in the afterlife.

This is popularly summarized as the statement, "Poor, but honest."

The opposite is the argumentum ad crumenam.

Is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting one's opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

The name "Galileo argument" refers to the scientist's suffering as a result of his house arrest by the Inquisition.

This uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach is more effective alongside the propagandist limiting or controlling the media.

Repeating the same thing makes it more available to other people, which they then may confuse with statistics to assume that this makes it more probable. It also makes the speaker more confident. If I say something repeatedly, it must be because it is true.

However, it still remains that repeating something does not make it true.

This is an assumption of the modern notion of progress, that just because something is new it is good and superior and can replace what has gone before.

X is new. Therefore it is better than that which it seeks to replace.

Newer is better. X is always better in all ways than X-1.

Many people do X. Therefore X is right.

If other people do something, then it is a reasonable thing to do.

The association fallacy is a formal logical fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing, if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous."

Spitefulness is a negative emotion that can be based on the needs for control and status. Sometimes it is unfounded and stems from bullying. At other times, it comes from a need for justice and revenge.

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Examples:

• Our new cutlery set will make you feel so good when you see it laid out on your dining table. 'Style and Grace' is the right thing for you.
• The Maki people of the South are known to be invading our towns! They are corrupting our children and taking our jobs!! Vote for me and I will eradicate this menace!

Appeals to emotion are intended to cause the recipient of the information to experience feelings such as fear, pity, or joy, with the end goal of convincing the person that the statements being presented by the fallacious argument are true or false, respectively.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.

If something is believed to be true by a lot of people then it must be true.

A variant is where the probability of truth is assessed by the number of people making the assertion (especially when you can see who is voting for and who is voting against the idea).

X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false.

Mock the other person's claim and argument. Make fun of it. Get people to laugh at it.

Alternatively, mock the alternatives that they might choose, giving them only one option that you have not mocked.

A fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to appeal to their audience's vanity to win support for their side. The appeal to flattery is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

Flattery is often used to hide the true intent of an idea or proposal. Praise offers a momentary personal distraction that can often weaken judgment. Moreover, it is usually a cunning form of appeal to consequences, since the audience is subject to be flattered as long as they comply with the flatterer.