The tendency to look for evidence in favor of one’s controversial hypothesis and not to look for disconfirming evidence, or to pay insufficient attention to it. 

Eg. Assuming a product is high quality because its from a brand you like.

An argument that claims an initial event or action will trigger a series of other events and lead to an extreme or undesirable outcome. The slippery slope fallacy anticipates this chain of events without offering any evidence to substantiate the claim. 

Eg. Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Purposely misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Eg. "I'm not really prefer dogs as a pet". " So only cat qualified as pet and not dogs? How disgraceful"

Given a too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices while ignoring other possibilities.

Eg. A pollster asks you this question about your job: “Would you say your employer is drunk on the job about (a) once a week, (b) twice a week, or (c) more times per week?. What about the choice of “no times per week”?. By demanding other choices beyond those on the unfairly limited menu, you thereby “go between the horns” of the dilemma, and are not gored.

Basically means an argument highlights evidence that supports its conclusion while ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.

Eg. Politicians often cherry-pick information when trying to back up their stance on adopting policies from other countries. They might highlight the success of these policies while ignoring any failures or negative consequences.

Literally translating as "you too". It's intended to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument.

Eg. Look who’s talking. You say I shouldn’t become an alcoholic because it will hurt me and my family, yet you yourself are an alcoholic, so your argument can’t be worth listening to.

A diversionary tactic in which an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert attention away from original issue. It's a way of misleading from actual concern.

Eg. When asked about pollution levels, the politician started discussing the importance of a strong economy.

This is an error in reasoning due to confusing the knowing of a thing with the knowing of it under all its various names or descriptions. It also a misapplication of Leibniz’s law (also known as the Identity of Indiscernible).

Eg. You claim to know Socrates, but you must be lying. You admitted you didn’t know the hooded man over there in the corner, but the hooded man is Socrates.

Ask a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty

Eg. Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was still having problems with her drug habit.

Reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.

Eg. Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.