In arguing and persuading there are rules, and the following logical fallacies are common examples of ways those rules are often broken.
This is when a persuader jumps to a conclusion without considering nuance. For example, to simply state "poverty causes crime," is an oversimplification because while it is true that crime exists in poverty stricken areas that is not necessarily evidence of causality as many people are poverty stricken but not criminals.
This is when a persuader presents only two choices with one being an obviously bad option, and offers no potential third way. For example, someone arguing against corporal punishment might say, "we can choose between time outs or child abuse." This is a false dichotomy, however, because they have not considered the parents who administer corporal punishment in loving, effective ways.
Ad Hominem Attack:
This is when a persuader attacks the source of an argument rather than the content. For example, if in a debate about the legalization of marijuana one claimant accused the other claimant of beating his wife he might get a shocked response from the audience but he will also have committed a logical fallacy.
The Slippery Slope:
This is when a persuader suggests a negative future that does not logically flow from the current situation. For example, when arguing about handguns, a persuader invoking the slippery slope might say, "if you are going to outlaw handguns for safety reasons you will eventually have to outlaw automobiles."
Appeal to Ignorance:
This is when a persuader invokes some variation of, "yes, but, we might never know what would happen if..." While it is a good rhetorical device, the fact that something has in fact not happened negates its evidentiary value.
Protecting the Hypothesis:
This is when a persuader considers only their side of an argument without offering an analysis of the opposing position. One-sided arguments are logical fallacies.