Something their argument relies upon (premise) is empirically false.
Logical links in their argument don’t stand up
Accept the first part, but not the second. ‘It does not follow that’
Lack of analysis to back up their points
If an argument is true, it harms something else in their case. CAREFUL, don’t just point out tension, point out why it's harmful.
Depends on them proving something else. (Weak, has to be used with something else usually)
Yes, your attack/argument may be true, but look at the comparative. Better on our side
Pot, Kettle, Black: yes, this thing is bad, but it happens more under your side
Who cares? Minimize the scale of their argument.
Worst case scenario gaming
Same as above but defending your own argument from attacks.
The opposition is using the wrong and often simpler version of your argument.
Credit: The immutable Will Cook