This fallacy occurs when someone who has no expertise to speak on an issue is cited as an authority:

This fallacy occurs when evidence is boiled down to "everybody's doing it, so it must be right:"

A fallacy in which the writer repeats the claim as a way to provide evidence:

the logical process of reaching a conclusion by beginning with a universal truth and applying it to a specific case

This is a fallacy that occurs when an analogy compares two things that are not comparable

(comparing apples & oranges):

an approach to analyzing and constructing arguments using British philosopher's temple:

"Because (evidence of support), therefore (claim), since (warrant or assumption), on account of (backing), unless (reservations:

A logical structure that uses the major premise and minor premise to reach a necessary conclusion

This type of argument, developed by a psychiatrist, is based on the assumption that having a full understanding of an opposing position is essential to responding to it persuasively & refuting it in a way that is accommodating rather that alienating

This is a fallacy that occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example in order to ridicule and refute an idea

These are potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in an argument

(usually involves failure to adequately support a claim):

This is a fallacy in which a faulty conclusion is reached due to inadequate evidence: