only two options in a given situation. Extreme opposites of each other, failing to acknowledge that other, more reasonable options exist.

(a)  

attempt to shift focus from the debate at hand by introducing an irrelevant point.

(a)  

the arguer claims a specific series of events will follow one starting point with no supporting evidence for this chain of events.

(a)  

statement to mislead or confuse readers or listeners by using multiple meanings or interpretations.

(a)  

argues against a hyperbolic, inaccurate version of the opposition rather than their actual argument.

(a)  

appeal to ignorance is a claim that something must be true because it hasn't been proven false.

(a)  

statement made after considering one or a few examples rather than relying on more extensive research to back up the claim.

(a)  

using threat or force or an undesirable event to advance an argument.

(a)  

attacking the person presenting the argument instead of the argument itself.

(a)  

it is by using emotions such as pity or sympathy that one might be able to convince the person.

(a)  

The idea is presented as acceptable because a lot of people accept it.

(a)  

claims an authority figure's experience to expertise to support a claim despite this expertise being irrelevant or overstated.

(a)  

the arguer justifies their decision to continue a specific course of action by the amount of time or money they've already spent on it.

(a)  

tu quoque fallacy, a rebuttal that responds to one claim, it is also a reactive criticism rather than with a response to the claim itself.

(a)  

one that implies a relationship between two things where one cant actually be proven.

(a)