When debate breaks: relevance fallacies

Definition

Relevance fallacies are dialectical reasoning with the engagement removed: instead of meeting an argument, they change what is being met. Ad hominem attacks the arguer; the straw man rebuts a weakened copy of the position; the red herring changes the subject; tu quoque answers a criticism with 'you too'; the appeal to emotion offers feeling where evidence was owed. Each leaves the original argument standing, untouched, behind the noise.

Memory hook

“The argument is still standing behind the noise.”

What it sounds like

• Consider who's saying it. (ad hominem)
• So you'd have us tear the whole thing down? (straw man)
• The real question is the harbor budget. (red herring)
• You've done the very same. (tu quoque)
• Think of how the founders would weep. (appeal to emotion)