A begging is an argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is an attempt to prove something to be true while taking that same thing for granted. This reasoning is fallacious because this hypothesis is not justified by any evidence. The fallacy is also known as petitio principii (Latin for "assuming the original point") or "chicken and egg argument" and is generally considered a form of circular reasoning.
Cause
In a good argument, the premises are plausible, that is, we have enough evidence to believe that the premises are true. There is also a logical connection between the assumptions presented in the premises and the final conclusion.
In raising a begging, there is no independent evidence to support the premises; rather, the conclusion is used to support the premises and vice versa. This means that the parts of our argument depend on each other, forming a circle: our argument simply repeats itself and proves nothing. This is a problem because a good argument requires evidence that does not constitute the argument itself.
Example
The arguments which raise the question can be convincing when the audience is unaware of the error or when they already share the speaker's point of view – so-called confirmation bias.
You're listening to a podcast about abortion laws and the host supports the idea that abortion should be legal because it's a human right. The interviewee has a different idea:
“You are neglecting the fact that abortion is murder. We should have laws against murder, and therefore we should have laws against abortion. »
The interviewee's argument is as follows:
Premise 1: Abortion is murder
Premise 2: We should have laws against murder
Conclusion: So we should have laws against abortion.
No one will argue with the need for laws against murder, but the real question here is whether abortion should be legal. The first premise therefore begs the question, as no evidence is provided to support this claim. This only assumes that abortion is murder. Which a priori has no relation to the initial problem.
Of course, someone who already agrees with the interviewee will see no problem in the reasoning, because they are already convinced that it is true.
However, whatever our own beliefs, there is a difference between believing something to be true and being able to justify it. In other words, there is a difference between the position itself and the arguments that support it. Ignoring this distinction, people fall into the trap of the misleading question.
How to avoid a begging?
When you want to defend a hypothesis, repeat it at the beginning of the speech/paragraph in order to stick to the stated facts.
EN 
FR