1. Source: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often used subtly by public speakers to fool/persuade people.
Source: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

2. appeal to consequences
You used an argument that either was considered true or false based on its desirable and undesirable consequences.
Appeals to consequences share a lot in common with appeals to emotion, e.g. you would prefer living in a world where unicorns exist; a world where unicorns don’t exist isn’t as beautiful as one in which they do; since this is the case unicorns must exist so that the world can be beautiful.
The Issue: an argument’s validity has nothing to do with whether or not its has desirable (I want X to be true) or undesirable (I don’t want X to be true) consequences; rather, valid arguments stand or fall on the basis of the supporting evidence (or lack thereof).
Example: Free will must exist; if it didn’t, human beings would be nothing more than machines.

3. false dichotomy
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the “false dilemma” or “black-or-white” fallacy, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument; however, under closer scrutiny it becomes quickly evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented.
The Issue: binary or black and white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two suggested possibilities; it frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate. This fallacy is best addressed through awareness and open-mindedness.
Example: while rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader tells the people they were either on his side or the side of the enemy.

4. ad hominem
You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
A hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage the ideas/thinking of your opponent.
The Issue: although a speaker’s credibility is important the truth or trustworthiness of a speaker’s ideas have nothing to do whatsoever with that speaker’s character. Ideas are stand or fall on the basis of either the physical or logical supporting evidence irrespective of the speaker’s personal qualities (or lack thereof).
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Bill asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells entirely unacceptable.

5. slippery slope
You said that if we allow X to happen, then Z will happen as a result; therefore, we should not do X.
Slippery slope arguments are attempts to appeal to the fears and emotions of an audience. In effect all such arguments misrepresent the central argument by focusing our attention on fantastic or unsubstantiated hypothetical situations.
The Issue: the problem with this reasoning is it avoids the issue actually being disputed by shifting our attention on to something unrelated through an appeal to fear.
Example: 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.

6. You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
strawman
You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
The Issue: the first speaker presents an valid argument. A second speaker introduces a counter-argument; however, the counter-argument isn’t leveled against the first speaker’s valid argument. Instead, the second speaker introduces and then attacks a secondary, irrelevant idea. The secondary idea cannot be defended (and cannot defend itself from a beating…just like a scare crow).
Example: Will argues we should put more money into healthcare and education. Warren responds saying he’s surprised Will hates our country so much he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending and putting money into social programs.

7. appeal to emotion
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more; it’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional effect; however, the problem and fallacy occurs when a speaker invokes emotion for the simple sake of manipulation instead of using rational arguments to convince an audience to accept or reject a particular claim.
The Issue: everyone is affected emotions and so appeals to emotion are a common and effective argument tactic; yet, they’re ultimately flawed and dishonest attempts at manipulation.
Example: the new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

8. special pleading
You looked for special treatment by ignoring aspects of an argument that do not support your point of view.
Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits to change one’s mind or be intellectually consistent, many of us invent ways to cling to old beliefs.
The Issue: it’s usually quite easy to find a reason to believe something when it suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one’s own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.
Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic; however, when his “abilities” were tested by actual scientists in a clinical setting these abilities inexplicably disappeared. Edward explained this problem away by saying the presence of scientific-skeptics made his psychic abilities no longer work.

9. tu quoque
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser—you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translated as “you too” this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring (distraction) because it takes heat off someone having to defend their argument by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism.
The Issue: when someone uses tu quoque they avoid having to deal with criticism, e.g. we shouldn’t drive cars because their pollution contributes to climate change, etc. by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism, e.g. well, why do you drive a car then?
Example: Bob tells Ted it is dangerous to smoke cigarettes. Ted responds back by saying Bob is wrong because Bob drinks pop sweetened with aspartame (which is also a potentially harmful substance).

10. tu quoque
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser—you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translated as “you too” this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring (distraction) because it takes heat off someone having to defend their argument by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism.
The Issue: when someone uses tu quoque they avoid having to deal with criticism, e.g. we shouldn’t drive cars because their pollution contributes to climate change, etc. by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism, e.g. well, why do you drive a car then?
Example: Bob tells Ted it is dangerous to smoke cigarettes. Ted responds back by saying Bob is wrong because Bob drinks pop sweetened with aspartame (which is also a potentially harmful substance).