Usually a negative argument that one thing will directly lead to another thing without evidence. Making a claim about a series of events that will lead to one major event.

As opposed to addressing the argument someone describes an often hypothetical scenario for the other person to address instead. Usually in bad faith and as an attempt to make a reasonable position seem outlandish or impossible.

Rather than arguing against the positions, claims, beliefs, and statements of the other party an attack is levied against that party's character. Oftentimes these attacks claims aren't based in evidence.

Deployed in a conversation to switch the subject away from the other party's argument. Wanting to focus on an issue one can argue well rather than the current topic.

The argument that if one event happens then another event happens the first event caused the second event. Often used in politics to blame a previous administration or office over another.

Preconceived notions and an unwillingness to question or challenge those notions. Applying an unsubstantiated fact to an entire group, topic, or thing without evidence.

Taking one thing that is benign or rather harmless and comparing it to something egregious or motivated by ill intent. An unfair and inaccurate comparison. Saying someone you disagree with is "as bad as Hitler" is a fallacy of moral equivalence.

Identifying something a group believes and using that to persuade someone to agree with an argument. Generally implying that acceptance from a group will be gained with agreement. Used to insight feelings of insecurity and isolation about their beliefs.

The argument appeals to a claim that is not sound. If something is already assumed to be included in the claim then no argument is actually being presented. Saying wool sweaters are better than sweatshirts because of wool does not inform why wool is better.