Continuing to look at material fallacies, we come to one of the most misunderstood and one of the most common.
"Begging the question" does not mean that a question is hanging in the air, waiting for someone to ask it. (That's "raising the question.") It means that an argument rests on itself, as a foregone conclusion. As Aristotle defined it, "Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) [of] failing to demonstrate the required proposition."
A famous example is the notion that "gay marriage isn't marriage because marriage is a union between a man and a woman." Um...no, see, you're using your own argument to support your own argument. How you define marriage may not actually be the correct (or legal) definition of marriage.
Or take a noted politician, who in January 2017 said "the news is fake because so much of the news is fake." He didn't even bother to cover up the abuse of logic.
Circulus in probando
A "circular argument" is similar, but the argument comes back around to itself rather than resting on itself. Example: "Smart people vote for my party, because it's a wise choice. And you can tell they're smart people, because they vote for my party." Round and round it goes.
Circular arguments differ from begging the question because there are more steps involved. Usually someone begs the question by using different words that mean the same thing; in a circular argument, you go around the circle.
Next time won't follow, absurdly.