Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

The not true Scotsman fallacy is a false appeal to purity. Its like saying no true American would vote for this is that candidate or not true Christian is gay or bisexual. The appeal to emotion fallacy is kind of like if you such and such, God kills a kitten. You do like kittens dont you. The strawman is kind of like misrespresenting someonesn statement to the point of lying. That would be like me saying you called me a retard in your statement when you did not. The slippery slope fallacy is like when the antiwoman movement said that allowing women to vote would lead to hampsters voting. From yourlogicalfallcyis.com: Example: The false cause fallacy is like saying: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax. Aslo from yourlogicalfallacyis.com: The fallacy fallacy is like saying: You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. This is the ad hom: Ad 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 hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. Loaded question: Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot. Burden of proof: The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. Genetic: This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. Apeall to authority: It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not. Middle ground: You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth. Ambiguity: You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.