1. Logical Fallacies
Part 3
“Non-logic”

2. Red Herring or “Topicality”
This generally refers to changing the subject mid-debate, so that we start arguing about a tangential topic rather than the real or original issue.
In debate this is an off-topic argument
And is the stock issue of “Topicality”
Ex: We start debating the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, but you bring up the fact that believing this theory is insulting to the human race.
Ex: We start debating the evidence supporting global warming, but you bring up the fact that Al Gore has a big house and flies on jets a lot.

3. Ad Hominem
Latin for “to the man” and refers to any attacks on the person advancing the argument, rather than on the validity of the evidence or logic. Dishonest and even Evil people often make valid claims, and good people often make invalid claims, so separate the claim from the person. Ad hominem attacks are the meat and potatoes of political campaigns, but this is because we are, in fact, debating over who to vote for Example “. Trumps says that many NATO countries are not spending the required amounts on defense, but Donald Trump is a racist and a liar Therefore the NATO countries do spend enough“ (FYI: Trump is right on this one!)

4. Emotional Appeals
When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or evidence, can be considered a fallacy. This includes in some but not all cases the fallacy: argument from adverse consequences, or “scare tactic”; bad things will happen to us if you do not agree with my argument. However, if one is arguing over whether or not bad things will occur, this is no longer a fallacy.

5. Ad Populum or “Band Wagon”
This is the assumption that if many or the majority of people believe something, then it must be true Of course the majority can be mistaken! Example: Before 1400 CE most people believed the Sun orbited the Earth, therefore it did.

6. Faulty Analogy
Our language functions through comparisons, and it is common and useful to argue the validity of one point by comparing it to another,
but often the comparison suggests that two thing are more alike than they really are.
Examples:
 Medical Student:
"No one objects to a physician looking up a difficult case in medical books. Why, then, shouldn't students taking a difficult examination be permitted to use their textbooks?"
 “Meat is murder.”