avoiding the question

Consider a disagreement with a scarecrow. The scarecrow will not argue back; therefore, you are free to argue about anything you want. Furthermore, you can alter its argument so that you can more easily defeat it, and it cannot object to the change. To defeat the scarecrow's argument, you can change it any way you like so that you can easily light the straw man on fire and consume him.

A straw man argument is essentially a made-up argument that doesn't really exist.

This fallacy is also called "Argumentum ad Populum". This is when someone tries to make their argument based on the fact that it is a popular choice among people, or what most people believe. It is an extension of the Faulty Appeal to Authority. If it is wrong to appeal to one person who is not a legitimate authority on a subject, then it is just as wrong to appeal to multiple people who are also not experts on the subject. 

We defer to all kinds of experts in our lives.  When we are not feeling well, we go to the doctor.  When our car starts to blow smoke and the engine is running rough, we go to a mechanic. Generally, we follow the advice of these experts in their fields because they know more than we do. That makes good sense. But what if we asked our mechanic about our health issues and our doctor about our car troubles? Would you trust them implicitly and take their advice? Perhaps we shouldn't. 

This logic fallacy is a type of Ad Hominem Fallacy in which the other person avoids the question by shifting the blame onto you.  Have you ever tried to help someone, only for them to turn it back on you? Usually, it stems from a guilty mind attempting to rationalise actions for which they lack a strong defence.  This fallacy also occurs when someone claims that two wrongs make a right.

This fallacy is another personal attack, but it may not be against just the messenger.  It could be someone from their past or the person or group who first came up with this idea. If they can attack the origin of this question or belief, then they think they can defeat or confirm the topic without further fighting.  The term "Genetic Fallacy" refers to the act of criticizing an argument based on its perceived origin or initiator. In other words, people tend to ignore or give credibility to a claim based on its source rather than the claim itself.

This is where someone avoids answering the question or discussing the topic by trying to embarrass you and try to get you to defend your position. If you have other people present, then they may try to discredit you and, therefore, your message in the other hearer's eyes. They do this by trying to attack you personally instead of dealing with the topic at hand.  This tactic is known in Latin as an "ad hominem attack" ("to the man").  The other person appeals to emotions and not logic or truth. Another type of attack could be "gas lighting."

When someone argues for an unjustifiable exception to the rule or applies a double standard, they are using the "Special Pleading Fallacy".  This is a type of "Red Herring".

The first logical fallacy is known as the "red herring." The "red herring" occurs when someone is discussing a question or topic, but the other person has sidestepped it by bringing up an irrelevant topic to divert your attention. People often end up debating this alternative, irrelevant topic instead of the original one.  Often, people employ this strategy without consciously recognising it. Either the person does not think logically by nature, or it is an inbuilt defence mechanism. Otherwise, it is a cunning diversion to get you off track.