Forgive me if I come across as a bit pedantic, but I consider looking at the way people reason as a valid point of discussion.
A couple of sites with refresher courses in logical fallacies:
Nizcor Wikipedia (an online encyclopida project.)
Some of my favorites (and I'll try to use two sided counter-examples)
Appeal to emotion (and it's subcatagory - appeal to fear)
A very popular one these days with fearsome things being on top of the news. This is very frequently used because 'what if' trumps logic in people's minds. No concrete evidence for the assertion is made, even though the 'what if' could easily be turned at either candidate.
Examples:
If you elect Kerry, terrorists will strike again.
If you elect Bush, he will reinstitute the draft.
Guilt by association In something as huge as the national political arena, people are going to have supporters they would rather not acknoledge. Having their support does not indicate embracing their positions
Examples:
The communists endorsed Kerry, that means he must be a commie scum.
The moonies endorsed Bush, that must mean that he follows that controversial religion (or is a cultist if you want to be properly inflamatory)
Honor by association Same thing, opposite direction
Bush's father was a good president, so he must be too.
Kerry was in 'Nam, so he must be honorable.
Two wrongs make a right (and two wrights make the first airplane)
This especially comes into play when the two wrongs are unrelated - a wronged b, so b should be able to wrong c.
Examples:
The Iraqis deserve to suffer because of what Al Queda did to us on 9/11.
The rich deserve to pay more taxes because some companies operate sweatshops in third world countries.
I have class tommorow night (Thus I won't be able to watch the debates, though I may look at the transcripts) If anybody want's to see how many logical fallacies they can catch in tommorow's debate, I'd be interested to see different people's take on it.
