Bears repeating

I've posted before about argument let's reprise The Art of Reasoning: With Symbolic Logic
by David Kelley. It amazes me how often some, or all, of these quirks is deployed in everyday life:

Ad Hominem: Using a negative trait of a speaker as evidence that his statement is false, or his argument weak.

Appeal to Majority: Using the fact that large numbers of people believe a proposition to be true, as evidence of its truth.

Post Hoc: Using the fact that one event preceded another, as sufficient evidence for the conclusion that the first caused the second.

Appeal to Force: Trying to get someone to accept a proposition on the basis of a threat.

Appeal to Authority: Using testimonial evidence for a proposition when the conditions for credibility are not satisfied, or the use of such evidence is inappropriate.

Appeal to Emotion: Trying to get someone to accept a proposition on the basis of an emotion one induces.

Begging the Question: Trying to support a proposition with an argument in which that proposition is a premise.

Diversion: Trying to support one proposition by arguing for another proposition.

Non Sequitur: Trying to support a proposition on the basis of irrelevant premises.

Subjectivism: Using the fact that one believes or wants a proposition to be true, as evidence of its truth.

Straw Man: Trying to refute one proposition by arguing against another proposition.

False Alternative: Excluding relevant possibilities without justification.

Ad Hominem: Using a negative trait of a speaker as evidence that his statement is false, or his argument weak.

Tu Quoque: Trying to refute an accusation by showing that the speaker is guilty of it.

Poisoning the Well: Trying to refute a statement or argument by showing that the speaker has a non-rational motive for adopting it.

Appeal to Ignorance: Using the absence of proof for a proposition as evidence for the truth of the opposing proposition.

Complex Question: Trying to get someone to accept a proposition by opposing a question that presupposes it.

I don't know whether you'll win any debates by deploying any of these techniques (or any points), but I am certain if you don't then you'll be the only person in the room who isn't.