An arguer is guilty of begging the question when purporting to answer a question of debate without really answering it, such as (in the classic form of this fallacy) putting forth a supporting premise which is just a paraphrase of the conclusion. This is named "begging the question" because when the paraphrasing is reconciled, the argument amounts to: "P is the case. Why? Because P is the case."

Usually, an elaborate and complex re-wording of the conclusion is used to give a false sense of having presented distinctive evidence for the conclusion, instead of a mere restatement of it. For example:

The Yankees are the best baseball team in the league. We know this because it is obvious that the team currently excels beyond the rest of the league in the things a team needs to do and is just generally an abundantly superior team.

The second sentence is a long-winded version of the first. Therefore, to put it forward as though it justifies the first sentence is to beg the question.

Note that this fallacy is not to be confused with the unrelated meaning of "beg the question", used to denote a yet-unasked question which someone believes to be obvious or natural in the context of discussion.