Pooh-pooh – dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration.[81]

Wishful thinking – a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[82]

Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.[83] (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)

Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[84]

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)[85]

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[86]

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[87] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[88]

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.[89]

Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.[90]

Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.[91][92]

Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.[38]

Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.[93][94]

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.[95][96]

Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.[97]

I'm entitled to my opinion – a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.

Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.

Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[98][99] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

Is–ought fallacy[100] – statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be.

Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[101] (anti-naturalistic fallacy)[102] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is {\displaystyle P\lor \neg P}P \lor \neg P does imply ought {\displaystyle P\lor \neg P}P \lor \neg P for any proposition {\displaystyle P}P, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy.

Straw man fallacy – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position,[103] especially to attack a weaker version of it rather than the argument actually presented. Also known as the weak man fallacy.[26]

Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.[104]

Tu quoque ('you too' – appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[105]

Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it.[106]