A subset of rhetorical/informal fallacies (from Wikipedia, up to and including the Goomba fallacy)

Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises.\[14\]

Argument from incredulity – when someone can't imagine something to be true, and therefore deems it false, or conversely, holds that it must be true because they can't see how it could be false.\[15\]

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct.\[16\]

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy, decision-point fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.\[17\]

Correlative-based fallacies

Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible (e.g., "I am not fat because I am thinner than John.").\[18\]

Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.\[19\]

Doorman fallacy – Reducing a role to its most basic visible/on-paper task without considering the full scope of tangible and intangible value that exists just under the surface, and use that to determine efficiency, cost, and redundancy. Coined by behavioral economist Rory Sutherland in his 2019 book Alchemy. A variant of Chesterton's fence.

Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.

Ecological fallacy – inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.\[20\]

Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.\[21\]

Ambiguous middle term – using a middle term with multiple meanings.\[22\]

Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.\[23\] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.

Motte-and-bailey fallacy – conflating two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one more controversial (the "bailey").\[24\] The arguer first states the controversial position, but when challenged, states that they are advancing the modest position.\[25\]\[26\]

Fallacy of accent – changing the meaning of a statement by not specifying on which word emphasis falls.

Persuasive definition – purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition.

(compare the if-by-whiskey fallacy)

Etymological fallacy – assuming that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.\[27\]

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.\[28\]

Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a composite thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.\[29\]

False attribution – appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextotomy, contextomy; quotation mining) – selective excerpting of words from their original context to distort the intended meaning.\[30\]

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to promote a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority.

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.\[31\]

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

Feedback fallacy – believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source of the evaluation is a disinterested party.\[32\]

Muhammad Wang fallacy - (Goomba fallacy) - treating separate statements of opinion made by different members of a group as if they were collectively held by that group, especially if the statements are contradictory. Often used with reference to fallacious collective attribution of hypocrisy, inconsistency, or flip-flopping to groups, especially online communities. The Muhammad Wang fallacy is a subset of the association fallacy.\[33\]\[unreliable source?\]