Conversational Cheap Shots is a simple explanation of invalid argument techniques.

Not a single damn one of them works in here. Let s/he who has ears hear.

NIT-PICKING: (Known in P6-land as "a debating tactic")
Instead of dealing with a comment or question directly, the idea here is to focus on some insignificant detail to evade the issue or buy time to think.

"We need to define just exactly what you mean by _________."

OUT OF CONTEXT:
A twisted version of NIT-PICKING, the technique here is to purposely misunderstand some word, phrase, or analogy and shift the focus to it instead of the subject. This ploy will derail the other person into a defense of the word, phrase, or analogy instead of the case at hand.

LISTEN UP:
Pretend that the reason the other person isn't able to agree with you is that they are not listening, or at least not hard enough.

PRETEND AD HOMINEM:
A specific escalation of YOU'LL PAY FOR THAT; make it seem as if the other person is attacking you rather than making a simple point or correction, especially if you suspect that the other party is correct. Rather than staying on the subject, begin to act hurt--as if you have been viciously attacked as a human being--rather than admit you are wrong, or could do better, etc.

WISHFUL THINKING:
Instead of proving a point true or false, this technique tries to imply that the individual's desires have led him/her astray without dealing with the merits of the issue itself. (C.S. Lewis termed this "Bulverism".) Any strong desire can be shown to have tainted a conclusion or clouded objectivity, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of a point. This is very close to the classic ad hominem fallacy: "you say that because you are a man."

HEAT-SEEKING QUESTION: (Good luck trying this one)
The intent here is to throw the other person's competence in doubt while at the same time changing the subject. A question is asked that the other person is not likely to know the answer to, destroying their credibility and confidence. To really rub it in, the questioner can give a full answer to his/her own question proving that him/herself to have superior knowledge of the subject.

LUNATIC FRINGE:
If a person is making an imaginative or novel point, the approach here is to push the idea to a radical extreme generally agreed to be bad. The extreme can be either real or imagined. The hope here is that the other person will reflexively back off and retreat to a defensive position, thus short-circuiting the progression of the argument.

QUESTION THE QUESTION / COMMENT:
A great lead-in for the technique of WISHFUL THINKING, or a method of delay giving yourself time to think of an answer.

"Why do you ask that?" / "What makes you ask that?"
"What drives you to make such a statement?"

WORD SALAD, a.k.a. SESQUIPEDALIANISM: (This is a favorite in the Afrofuturism mailing list)
This is a recipe for sophisticated babbling. Ingredients include: philosophic sounding words and sentence structure, unintelligible Latin terms, banal folk wisdom, jargon, catch phrases, truisms, etc. Sprinkle lightly with a few words that appear to pertain to the subject. This will sound very impressive without really saying anything and will buy time to think of something meaty to say while your lips are flapping. In some circles such machinations can actually be passed off as an answer--or a point!

CUT 'EM OFF AT THE PASS: (Typically seen on shows like Crossfire, typically executed by members of the exotic species rudus interruptus , i.e. Ingraham and the Coulter-Thing. Much like Tourette Syndrome)
If you can see where the other person's logic is leading, you can make it very difficult along the way by arguing each minute sub-point and example. If the other person can not get past the first point, how will a case ever be made? Most of the techniques listed can be used to achieve this end.

DENIAL OF A VALID CONCLUSION:
This is the opposite of the CUT 'EM OFF AT THE PASS technique. Instead of arguing along the way, agree with all of the sub-points but deny the obvious conclusion. This is very frustrating to the other person because it automatically changes the subject to epistemology (how we know what we know). Generally, the other person will attempt another explanation rather than get into a heavy epistemological discussion, and the technique can simply be repeated.

SELECTIVE MEMORY:
To bring up a past event and GET IT ALL WRONG, or even to make up a past event. The intent is to get the other person confused, angry, and defensive.