"Red Herring"
"tu quoque"
"Straw Figure"
Back in the day in England, competing fox hunters would toss a stinky fish (possibly a literal red herring) into the underbrush to distract their opponent's dogs from the real target: foxes. Similarly, a Red Herring fallacy occurs when someone introduces irrelevant points that are used to distract from the issue of relevance.
Example: "Yes, officer, I was going 44 KPH in a 40 KPH zone, but aren't there child abusers, murderers, and drug dealers who you should be focusing on?"
This is considered a logical fallacy because, regardless of whatever else is wrong with the world, the arguer was speeding. While the points the speeder makes about child abusers, murderers, and drug dealers may in fact be true, they are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not the driver was breaking the law by speeding. The officer could just respond with: "Yep, they're out there, and I'm hunting them down, too. Here's your speeding ticket."
Example: THIS LIST FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
tu quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy -- "And you, too!"):
We've all heard someone say, "Do as I say, not as I do." Well, if we were to assume this advice was wrong simply because the person giving the advice wasn't following that same advice, we would be faulty in our logic. We've also seen (used?) the logic that, "Well Richard did it, too, and he didn't get in trouble? Why are you going after me about it?" People who use the tu quoque fallacy seek to justify their infraction of the rules by pointing out that someone else has done the same thing and gotten away with it. Perhaps, this is true, but that claim is completely irrelevant. The only issue to be concerned with is the guilt or innocence of the alleged wrongdoer in this specific instance.
Example: "Officer, how can you pull me over for speeding? I'm pretty sure I saw you speeding yesterday."
What may or may not have happened yesterday, though possibly hypocritical, really has no bearing on this current issue. The arguer was speeding. It's illegal. Here's your ticket.
Example: "I don't believe my friend Bob when he says that smoking is bad for me. He's a smoker, so he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about."
Bob might, in fact, have something sensible to say about the perils of smoking regardless of whether he's a smoker or not.
Example: "How could you call a foul on me? They've been fouling me just like that all game, and you didn't call a foul on them!"
This is a commonly used logical fallacy. It occurs when, rather than attack an actual opponent, someone creates a fake, more extreme version of their opponent which is then easier to attack. Then, they attack their creation instead of their actual opponent. This ignores the possible complexity of an issue and then avoids the complex refutation that might be necessary to respond fairly. Depending on how extreme the "straw man" is created, this fallacy can border on becoming an ad hominem.
Example: "Environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people."
While an environmentalist might advocate for certain creatures, this does not mean that they rank those creatures above people. In fact, some might argue that having a well-balanced environment with healthy populations of all animals is good for the health of all people.
(Adapted from: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/)
Example: Question: how should we help the homeless? Straw Figure Response--Lazy bums who don't want to make any effort to work shouldn't be helped.
The truth is that people become homeless for many, many reasons, some of them through no fault of their own. Many homeless people would work many jobs if they could. Those people are difficult to attack, so the respondent creates an extreme version of homeless people (aka: straw figures), which are much easier to attack. Then, the respondent simply attacks the lazy, apathetic homeless people instead of the larger population of homeless people who often suffer from mental illness, addiction, being a child, or just plain bad luck.
Example: Governor Walker is being misrepresented here. By misrepresenting his words, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin is creating a fictional character that is easier to attack.
The end result is that, to those who are well-informed, the Democratic Party looks dishonest and, therefore, untrustworthy. That said, many people who are not critical of what they are seeing can be manipulated into thinking these were Governor Walker's properly synched words and actions. Either way, this type of misrepresentation (regularly engaged in by both political parties) is reckless and harmful to true democracy. Can you see why we need a highly educated, highly critical population of voters? It takes skill and diligence to sift through nonsense like this.