This encyclopedia has a very long list of fallacies. Trying to prevent them is part of good debate. Note that some are dual, for example you have ‘excluded middle’ or ‘no middle ground’ but also to think that the answer is in the middle *can be* fallacious http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6 

I think it’s great when people call for ‘better debate’. I’m doing that now. But it’s also important to realise that fallacies come in different forms and format, and that giving a one-sided account of that is....well....fallacious.

Another aspect might be *consistency*. One fallacy does not justify another (in fact, that would be a ‘tu quoque’, ‘you too’).

So, no an ‘ad hominem’ as reaction to an ‘ad hominem’ is not less of a fallacy. And if you are keen to point them out with others, take care yourself.

So when you feel someone is misrepresenting your argument (a strawman?) then that wouldn’t justify your own strawman or other fallacy. Just say they are misrepresenting you.

I must admit, that can be pretty hard. I have had situations where I gave a certain argument and the other kept on insisting I had misrepresented their argument. In my perception, I kept on asking questions and explain my position, but it didn’t get resolved.

Some people are pretty versatile in moving from one fallacy to the other, sometimes even in response to accusations you use fallacies as well. Shifting definitions, goalposts, that sort of thing.

Somwe have to take everything as argument. For example, saw it said in response to skepticism regarding think tank research or speculative blogs. “Just evaluate the arguments”, is what people say. I understand that, although Walton does describe biundary conditions.

But ok, let’s say that’s the argument. Then suddenly ‘you are a non-teacher’ might be used just after. Also ad hominem. Sometimes people ‘hide it’: “I am talking about the arguments but it is so weak because they are non-teacher” - still no substantive argument....