Naming a fallacy is the least useful thing you can do with it. What matters is understanding why the bad move is tempting — usually because it sits next to a legitimate one — and knowing how to rebuild the argument properly. Every entry below therefore ends with a repair, not a label.
Fallacies that dominate apologetics debates
A straw man substitutes a distorted or simplified version of the opponent's position for the real one, refutes the substitute, and claims victory. It feels productive because a real refutation occurred — just not of anything the other person believes.
In apologetics this happens in both directions constantly. A skeptic attacks 'the sky fairy who magically poofed the world into being'; a Christian attacks 'atheists who think everything came from nothing for no reason'. In both cases the target is a caricature, and the audience learns nothing.
The discipline that eliminates it is steelmanning: state the other position so well that a competent defender of it would say 'yes, that is what I mean' — then respond. This is not a courtesy. An argument that only defeats the weak version does not tell you whether you are right.
Example in the wild
"Christians believe God is an old man in the sky, and there's no old man up there, so God doesn't exist." Classical theism does not claim God is a physical being located in space.
Why it is tempting
The weakened version is easier to refute and often genuinely resembles what some people believe, which makes the substitution feel fair.
How to repair the reasoning
Restate the opposing view in your own words and ask whether you have it right, before responding to it.
For further study
Logic is a craft. These are the standard texts for learning to evaluate arguments rather than merely label them.
Being Logical — D. Q. McInerny
A short, practical introduction to argument form and the common informal fallacies.
Introduction to Logic — Irving Copi, Carl Cohen, and Victor Rodych
The standard university textbook; the reference for formal validity and fallacy taxonomy.
Thinking, Fast and Slow — Daniel Kahneman
Why arguments fail psychologically even when the logic is sound.
The Fallacy Detective — Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn
Deliberately simple drills — useful for training recognition speed rather than theory.