If we start accepting ‘slippery slope’ arguments, then who knows what other bad arguments we might be forced to accept in the future!
‘Ad hominem’? People who make those arguments are jerks.
If ‘affirming the consequent’ is a bad argument type, then it will have a conclusion. So since it has a conclusion, clearly it’s a bad argument type.
You have to reject all ‘false dilemmas’, or else the terrorists win.
My professor told me to reject arguments from ‘appeal to authority’, so that’s what I should do!
You might think use of a ‘red herring’ is a good argument, but I think the real issue here is the war in Iraq.
I heard a few ‘hasty generalization’ arguments that were wrong, so now I know they’re all wrong.
Sure, that sounds like a good argument, but if it were a REAL ‘no true Scotsman’ argument, it would clearly be false.
Your ‘appeal to emotion’ really made me upset, so it must be wrong.
You think ‘straw men’ make good arguments? So you’re basically saying that there’s no such thing as a logical fallacy and that we have to accept everything anyone says.