I'm taking Intro to Logic right now and I think it would be a good idea to post some formal and informal fallacies so that people would be aware of them and to avoid them in our debates. What is a fallacy? In terms of logic, any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. (Dictionary.com) In other words, using these types of "reasons" are just pretend support for your argument.

This list is from the book, Critical Thinking (white is the definition, yellow is the example):
Source: Moore, Brooke Noel., and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print

"Argument" from outrage: An attempt to persuade others by provoking anger in them, usually by inflammatory words, followed by a "conclusion" of some sort.
"They're just livid--the press, the leftists in this country--are just upset there are not enough deaths to get people outraged and protesting in the streets against the war. They're mad these doctors are saving lives. They want deaths."

Scapegoating: Placing the blame for some bad effect on a person or group of people who are not really responsible for it but who provide an easy target for animosity.
"He could get good old Southern boys to do anything by 'whupping' them into a frenzy over Northern civil rights workers."

Scare tactics: Trying to scare someone into accepting or rejecting a claim. A common form includes merely describing a frightening scenario rather than offering evidence that some activity will cause it.
Dangling a frightening picture in front of someone in order for them to do something based on that emotion.

"Argument" by force: Using a threat rather than legitimate argument to "support" a conclusion."
"Clean your room right now, or else you will get a spanking from me!"

"Argument" from pity: Supporting a claim by arousing pity rather than offering legitimate arguments. (If pity is the "reason", that argument is unsound)
"I hired her because she has 2 kids and is homeless."

"Argument" from envy: Trying to induce acceptance of a claim by arousing feelings of envy.
"Well, he may have a lot of money, but he certainly has bad manners"

Apple polishing: A pattern of fallacious reasoning in which flattery is disguised as a reason for accepting a claim.
"My defendant is innocent, and it would take an unusually discerning jury to see that the law is in favor to my side.

Guilt trip: Trying to get someone to accept a claim by making him or her fell guilty for not accepting it.
"How could you not invite Mary? She would not do the same to you and she would feel hurt."

Wishful thinking: Accepting a claim because you want it to be true, or rejecting it because you don't want it to be true.
A smoker refusing to acknowledge the health hazards of smoking.

Peer pressure "argument": A fallacious pattern of reasoning in which you are in effect threatened with rejection by your friends, relatives, etc., if you don't accept a certain claim.
"You have to acknowledge this claim to be true, or we won't like you anymore."

Groupthink fallacy: Fallacy that occurs when someone lets identification with a group cloud reason and deliberation when arriving at a position on an issue.
Patriotism can sometimes be a good example when using it as a "reason" to do something while neglecting other reasons.

Rationalizing: Using a false pretext in order to satisfy our desires or interests.
"That's a fine idea! Really creative. Your wife will really like a saw. Maybe you could build a boat for her, and you and I could go fishing!"

"Argument" by popularity: Accepting or urging others to accept a claim simply because all or most or some substantial number of people believe it; to do this is to commit a fallacy.
"You should believe in a god because the majority of people believes in a god."

"Argument" from common practice: Attempts to justify or defend and action or a practice on the grounds that it is common--that "everybody," or at least lots of people, do the same thing.
"Shell Oil Company was charged with misleading advertising in its Platformate advertisements. A Shell spokesman said: 'The same comment could be made about most good advertising of most products'"

"Argument" from tradition: "Arguing" that a claim is true on the grounds that it is traditional to believe it is true.
"Because Americans traditionally believe in Santa Claus, Santa Claus exists.

Subjectivist fallacy: This pattern of fallacious reasoning, "well, X may be true for you, but it isn't true for me," said with the intent of dismissing or rejecting X.
"I think that sandpaper is slippery"

Relativist fallacy: Claiming a moral standard holds universally while simultaneously maintaining it doesn't hold within societies that don't accept it.
"Well, I think bullfighting is wrong, but other cultures don't think so, and who am I to tell them what to believe? If they think there is nothing wrong with bullfighting, then I guess it isn't wrong for them to have bullfights."

Two wrongs make a right: This pattern of fallacious reasoning "It's acceptable for A to do X to B because B would do X to A," said where A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B's doing X to A.
You got tired of your neighbor making loud noises, so you borrowed a tow truck and moved your neighbor's car into a river."

Red herring: A distraction by pulling one's attention away from one topic and toward another.
"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole concept is getting ridiculous."

Smoke Screens: An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.
Some accuse George W. Bush to put up a smoke screen in hiding the real reason in attack Iraq, for oil interests instead of stopping production of nuclear weapons.

Ad Hominem("To the man): Attempting to rebut a source's argument, claim, or position on the basis of considerations that logically apply to the source rather than to the argument, claim, or position.
"Parker is an ingenious fellow. Therefore, his opinions themselves are ingenious."

Personal attack ad hominem: A pattern of fallacious reasoning in which we refuse to accept another's argument because there is something about the person we don't like or of which we disapprove. (There are some exceptions, like drugs induced)
"Johnson is uncaring, so his claims are refuted."

Inconsistency ad hominem: A pattern of fallacious reasoning of the sort "I reject your claim because you act inconsistently with it yourself" or "You can't make that claim now because you have in the past rejected it."
"The president says now that he believes in global warming, but ladies and gentlemen, when the president was campaigning he scoffed at the idea."

Circumstantial ad hominem: Attempting to discredit a person's claim by referring to the person's circumstances.
"Well, you can forget about what Father Hennesy says about the dangers of abortion, because Father Hennesy's a priest, and priests are required to hold such views."

Poisoning the well: Attempting to discredit in advance what a person might claim by relating unfavorable information about the person.
Mrs Jones

Genetic fallacy: Rejecting a claim on the basis of its origin or history.
"There is no God because that belief came first came from a superstitious time when we had a few explanations for natural disasters."

Straw man: A type of fallacious reasoning in which someone ignores an opponent's actual position and presents in its place a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that position.
"I'm a very controversial figure to the animal rights movement...I am constantly challenging their fundamental premise that animals are superior to human beings."

False dilemma: This pattern of fallacious reasoning: "X is true because either X is true or Y is true, and Y isn't," said when X and Y could both be false. (Meaning if there is another solution)
"People are voyeurs, if they are not irredeemably sick,...feel ashamed at what they are witnessing."

Perfectionist fallacy: Concluding that a policy or proposal is bad simply because it does not accomplish its goal perfectly.
"It's a mistake to use replays to make calls because no matter how many cameras you have following the action on the field, you're still going to miss some calls. There's no way to see everything that's going on."

Line-drawing fallacy: The fallacy of insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a line be drawn.
"If we cannot point to the precise dollar that makes her rich, then she can never get rich, no matter how much money she is given."

Slippery slope: A form of fallacious reasoning in which it is assumed that some event must inevitably follow from some other but in which no argument is made for the inevitability.
"Letting the courts decide such life-and-death issues made it possible for us to let them decide others, made it seem wrong for anyone to stand in their way."

Misplacing the burden of proof: A form of fallacious reasoning in which the burden of proving a point is placed on the wrong side. One version occurs when a lack of evidence on one side is taken as evidence for the other side, in cases where the burden of proving the point rests on the latter side.
"Do you know if you rub red wine your head, your grey hair will turn black again" "Baloney" "Baloney? How do you know it won't work"

Begging the question: An argument whose conclusion restates a point made in the premises or clearly assumed by the premises. Although such an argument is technically valid, anyone who doubts the conclusion of a question-begging argument would have to doubt the premises, too.
"Gay marriage should not be legal because if there wasn't anything wrong with them they would already be legal, which they aren't."

cum hoc, ergo propter hoc ("with that, therefore because of that"): Thinking that a correlation or covariation between variable proves that one causes the other.
"According to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, infants who are breastfed have higher IQs later in life."

post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after that, therefore because of that"): Reasoning that X caused Y simply because Y occurred after X, or around the same time.
"The moment that declaration was made, oil prices jumped over $18 a barrel."

I will disagree with you in 1 case only. Logical fallacies used intentionally can make the point you want to make in a round-about way and usually with a bit of humor too. I find it's my favorite way to argue with people. Being ridiculously obvious with a bad argument usually shows other people how silly they sound arguing the same point of view in a slightly different way.

geeogree : ok fine you can think of it that way. HAHA. I'm thinking more of when someone use logic to support their view, which does not include sarcastic remarks. But yes, that may work too.

In Philosophy 101, we learned a lot about fallacies. My favorite that I didn't see in your list is Reductio ad Absurdum. It translates from Latin to mean Reduction to the absurd. It basically proves that an argument contradicts itself.

Further explanation is on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


Also, Poisoning the Well doesn't have an explanation.

Yeah, I noticed that one was missing as well... and I also believe that is the one that Geeogree employs most often. There were also several others that you missed that formed the basis of my logic class lecture on fallacies. I will copy/paste from Wikipedia because I like their examples:



Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions. a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).





Example


Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule





Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule. Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter




Example


Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.

Problem: Those one has met are a subset of the entire set.





Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.



Example:


Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.

Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.

Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).




Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.


Example


Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.

Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.



Also, you listed the two ad hoc special case fallacies but left out the main False Cause fallacy...



Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur : incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."


Example:


Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.

Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining.



Also, I found some of your examples a bit lackluster... and in the cause of "poisoning the well" you actually did not put one at all, but it is a fairly easy one to understand.




A better version of the Straw Man fallacy:




Person A claims: Sunny days are good.

Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.

Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

I would like to add to your list the Broken Window fallacy and the Golden Mean fallacy.

Broken Window comes from the concept of deliberately smashing windows to spur the economy along by providing additional business to the window manufacturers. The idea is that this is a good thing because it circulates money (EG the window makers will then buy something with the money they've made selling new windows) but this is incorrect because there are much better ways to circulate money without deliberately destroying things. The money could have been spent on something more progressive and is instead wasted trying to return the world to where it was before you broke the windows. The Broken Window fallacy doesn't just apply to windows, mind you, but a lot of other concepts. For example, "Fixing the health care industry and providing government sponsored health care is a bad thing because it would put a lot of insurance agency workers out of a job." This is a broken window because the insurance agency is presently wasting money that could be used in other places, and the workers could certainly find new (perhaps not as lucrative or exploitative) jobs.

The Golden Mean fallacy is the idea that a compromise is always the best option. The easy to explain example of why a compromise isn't always the best answer is Prima argues that 1 + 1 = 2; Secunda argues 1 + 1 = 4; Trifecta, unable to tell who is correct declares the right answer must be that 1 + 1 = 3, a perfect marriage of the two opposing positions. The Golden Mean fallacy is very popular among people who are unable to admit that there are some dichotomies that are not false, and that there are some things that are true. A more applicable example of a Golden Mean fallacy would be a news organization that declares their content is unbiased (and therefore, correct) because they present both sides of the story. If we can't decide which story to tell, we will tell both sides of the story. Some people think we live on a round earth, and the other side thinks that we live on a flat earth. The subscriber to the Golden Mean fallacy would say that we should "Teach the controversy" rather than actually enforce one viewpoint over the other.

Remember, kids. The search for balance in news breeds imbalance because sometimes things are true.      

I'm going to include in this posts some Logic Fallacies that I believed were missed so far.  I'm not including examples as I'm not sure what would be appropriate to include and not be misinterpret.

Here are they are, though, not necessary with their official names:

Living in the Past - This is when somebody dwells on an action or fact instead of learning from it, referencing it later only when appropriate to bring up, or dismissing it as false.

Living in the Present - This is when somebody reacts to everything that comes their way without first making sure they need to react to it, that their reaction is appropriate to what they are reacting to, or that they are properly capable of the reaction they are trying.

Living in the Future - This is when you ignore any action and/or information that doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that you predetermined to work toward.

Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees - This is where somebody ignores facts/actions that they should know supports his/her/hir/its case/helps get them to their goal in an attempt to present their case/achieve their goal often causing his/her/hir/its case to not get support from others/prevents said goal from being achieved.

Oversimplification - This is where somebody tries to simplify something beyond its simplest parts often making it complicated instead.

Mumbo Jumbo - This is where somebody tries to win an argument by using fancy words to cover up the fact that he/she/sie/it doesn't know any more facts to support their own side of the argument.

Ooh this is handy. I'll refer to this thread the next time that I have to make an argument or happen to find myself in one lol.

Thank you for posting this! I remember learning about Logical Fallacies in 11th grade and I always found them fascinating. Not only that, but it is a good way to keep myself in check and not be manipulated by what other people say. Still, when trying to be persuasive, taking advantage of other people's ignorance is very effective... even though it is wrong. 

play4fun :

Look what I found on Facebook. If you click the picture, it will link to a larger and more readable version-





Image upload: 1600x1131 totaling 100 KB's.

I always considered fallacies the easy way of winning debates with less intelligent people. Makes usual debates more fun at any rate... of course if you try to use them on an intelligent person they wouldn't allow it anyway so  doing so would just harm your own argument. Also when you are in an argument you argue to win not to find out what is logically correct (most people anyway). So I don't really see the point in knowing the fallacies anyway.

Magnus333 : well then, you should consider debating as a means of finding the truth rather than to win an argument. It's not that "intelligent" people would not allow you to use fallacies in an argument, it's more because no one should take your claim seriously if you are arguing with fallacies, so it's important to understand fallacies so that you or other people would be lead towards a wrong conclusion or decision.

just here for exp

People in Australia have babies.
Dingos eat babies
Dingos live in Australia
Therefore Dingos will eat all Australian babies.

No offense to my Australian friends. But base on this error in thinking there should be no Australian's on this site due to Dingos eating you at birth.

New Super Mario Bros is still Mario.
Mario is still made by Nintendo.
Therefore, Mario is still totally not a copy/paste series of games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM

xandermartin98 : That is not even a logical argument. You don't even have a copy/paste condition as one of the premises.

play4fun : It's supposed to be illogical. It's totally false. Mario has totally turned into a predominantly copy/paste series of overrated games.

xandermartin98 : So maybe make an argument that makes your conclusion true though logic

play4fun : If you're interested in other books about logic/critical thinking, you might try "Asking the Right Questions" by M. Neil Browne. His book (and course) are very intense, regardless of how short the textbook is. While I couldn't stand the class and did miserably, what I learned to do is amazing and helpful.

The next time I get online, I'll go through what I have saved to my laptop and see if I can add anything.