D11a has been said (Diversion off the argument);
S11b is Straw Man, which is very widely used because it offers a gracious exit sometimes, this is arguing for a cause using a part of the establised truth, though without the overall picture
--- --- ---
Positive argumentation is the basis of all communication. If one wants to make a point, one should build a following structure of consequence and test it with peers. Then publish, if necessary. What I have been able to offer is one small part of a comprehensive book of common sense, quite unlike the tedious standard that was available in Helsinki around 1990. As soon as the name is available, I will be pleased to inform you of the author. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

11 is the sum of all that has been said = Non Sequitur. It does not follow. This is either the junk or king category of the whole thing. A three-year-old learns to use it, and some of 85 never can grasp.
Now shortly, about the TCPDS.
T6a is Tu Quoque, (you are quilty of the thing you accuse others of)
P6b is Poisoning the Well (your information quell is worthless)
C7a is of type "because of A, there is B, and because of B, there is A" .This sounds very simple here, in real speech, it is not

9 is Ignorance = appealing to non-existence of imagined negative ,or, widely, just not-ever-happened events. The absence of not happening is never proof of any positive event. Explanation is to be positively established;
10 is Post Hoc = the fact that since there is or was, it is right. No, no. We have seen multiple times that historical events are not right "an sich" and an alternative evolution of history could have taken place. Historical conventions are to be critically examined, if one wants to stick to logic. Post Hoc works in the casual speech but you have to guard against misinterpretation of historical facts

7 is begging the question, which personally is difficult for me, but I understand that by bad linking of fact and a little powder in between the speaker is trying to explain a thing with that things very existence, which in logic is inabmissible;
8 is False Alternative, which is very useful in normal speech. You listen to the argument, wait a while, and then keep on talking about similar enough things, so that the listener does not realise you have changed the subject. Offer beer, and some wine, and its perfect. You dont get accused of anything. Keep on talking. Logically, this is a fallacy.

Let us reiterate in capital the letters, in this order: SMEF AA BFIPN (TCPDS). Having considered the SMEF part, we will enter, in earnest, the next, which is
5 Authority (appeal to) = authority in itself proves little, but one must weigh the plus and the minus, then
6 Ad Hominem = appeal to personal attributes or explaining properties of the speaker. They are invalid because the speech is one and the man/woman is another. The cheapest speaker can say the truth, and the most revered can lie, so never attach to prestige

Following is a complete list of common logical fallacies. Upon cleaning house I stumbled upon my original study notes. Now please forgive me for not stating the name of the author. If i had this information, I would share it with any reader.
In logic, this should in my view be regarded as basic rather than advanced information.
The text is about negatives of following (seguitur, Latin, to follow), it is not centrally about positive following.
No man talks so sterile that this information is directly useful, paticularly not in a fellow conversation. It is suited for reading papers, Youtube-comments and other written positions, where the other is supposed to have the next say.

Along the great history of Spain, there has been an evolution of the subject. This is beautifully displayed in the word "usted". Usted is the other, not seen, not directly confronted. In Finnish, for instance, there is no word to describe the common Spanish world view, if indeed, there is such a thing. Yes, I was lucky, and the story about Guyana is true. I can read a Spanish newspaper, even if it should preferably be from the 80s!

Did you learn some spanish language when you were young? The world is really little! :-D Guyana is really far from Finland. I understand the concept of "él se llama John" is difficult for other nations. In English is "He is called John", completely different form to say the same. We Spanish have difficulties to understand "I like something". The expression in Spanish "me gusta algo" is completely different, too.

Distilling, stripping of all unnecessary parts of usual and casual human speech is very difficult. It will more often that not run into immediate resistance. People do not speak their mind but play a role. Insisting on the truth may be harmful to the individual, so sometimes it is better to go along with a lie.
The important thing here is: Never let the lie become a part of your soul.

Two days ago I met a man who declined to take me up for compulsory labor service.

I would be misusing the book Im talking about without stating that this one book changed my mind. It carried a general idea of understanding human language and the fallacies thereupon. It is explicitly shown in the work why we so often arrive at the wrong conclusion. And it so wrong that I cannot remember the authors name. Damn!
Constructive the book is. It is about following, and although I only remember parts of one chapter out of five, or six, the main point is, I think: DISTILL THE ARGUMENT.