It's good to be aware of potential fallacies when debating, but I find that we're pretty good on Hubski :)
Do you think most people use fallacies on purpose?
These are great. Here's a pretty good website with some more. It's always good to be wary of these while constructing your argument. I find a lot of people (in my hs debate club, mind you) misuse logical fallacies while examining their opponent by simply stating that their opponent's argument contains fallacy x and then moving on like the point's been made for them. Need's more 'splainin. I don't use them intentionally myself, but according to my rhetoric professor, op-ed writers sometimes use them to get their audience even more on their side. I've never seen an example of this though. The only other people I can imagine using them are trolls, and I'm sure they do it all the time.
My ADHD went into overdrive watching this but I learned a good bit. I'm guilty of all these fallacies sometimes. I don't use them purposely. I guess I lack the patience, or intelligence to genuinely express how I truly feel. Cool share Elizabeth.
I had not heard of the "No-True-Scotsman Fallacy." I suppose we can create a version of that: No true Hubskier would use sloppy argumentation." He also covered the Straw Man, Authority, Ad Hominem, and the Black and White Fallacies. Here are some other fallacies of argumentation that I have discussed: The two wrongs fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, the red herring fallacy, and the fallacy of guilt by association. As Mike says, there are lots more. To be an astute thinker, it's good to be aware of logical fallacies. I think most people don't use these types of arguments deliberately, but rather out of ignorance or poor thinking skills or lack of training or bad role models. As for hubski discussions, I find people are often called out on sloppy thinking.
I like (as in I find interesting) the "false dichotomy" fallacy. This is where a person is only faced with two options to choose from, therefore forced to go down one of two lanes, which may both be incorrect. In reality, more than these two options exist, but because that's all that is presented to the argue-ee, it's easy for them to lose sight of other options or get backed into a corner by the argue-er when they choose either of these "wrong" options. I have seen this happen with hiring managers (only 2 people had applied for a job, neither of them were the right fit, but the manager felt pressured to choose one - when she could/should have opted to wait and see if a better candidate came along) and also with arguments about sexism (a man asked me "which would I prefer - a guy who called me and presented me with plans for a date, or a man who called me and asked me what I wanted to do/had no plans." When I said "Well if he had plans I'd love to hear them, but if I had something I wanted to do I would also propose that" he said "Well why didn't YOU call him up if you had something you wanted to do?" and I was like "Yo dude, you presented me with an either/or situation, I realize there are other options, but you can't yell at me for not taking an action in a scenario where that action was not presented." - which I guess is kind of a variant.)