The Heaven’s Gate: when a poster declares their authority to define matters of morals and justice.
There’s that move where all the board’s IP addresses get banned. I suggest we name it after Ellen Cherry.
Feeling vindictive today, eh?
Zeroing in on an (occasionally minor or peripheral) weakness in an opponent’s argument and mercilessly pushing the point as a way to distract attention from the weaknesses in one’s own argument: InTerrogation 
I coined or identified the term Argumentum Aldebaranium:
For posters that resort to his now “classic” obtuse move:
“MY POST IS MY CITE!” And ‘No! I do not need to find any stinking cites for you, you should be happy just by my knowledge that was expressed in my previous posts.’
The “cite but no quote” move. This is when you give a cite, knowing it really doesn’t prove anything, but hope no one will actually read it. Further enhanced when challenged, and you still refuse to quote the part of your cite that supposedly proves your point.
The “I can’t believe no one” move. “I can’t believe no one has mentioned Star Wars!” When in fact several people have mentioned Star Wars, including the OP, the thread title, etc.
Is that anything like “pulling a Marley”? 
The insert name of any of a couple of dozen posters here: claiming that something is self-evident and refusing to support it even after 10/20/50 people explain that it isn’t.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this one.
The 'luci is when you’re losing an argument (or possibly just tired of arguing) and start talking about your hippie past and/or how much pot you would have to smoke to understand your opponent/agree with his conclusion.
And I mean that in a good way. Sort of.
Bonus points if it’s a 256-page PDF.
Who needs earnest, intelligent discourse when you can fight dirty?
How about a term for people who try to compensate for their own inadequacies by constantly looking for others to mock, whether starting Pit threads dedicated to that purposes or just joining in when the pile-on seems well underway?
Problem is, there are so many good candidates for the naming rights on this one, no matter who you pick you’d be short-changing some very deserving poster.
What’s much more common IME is when people give a cite but don’t know that it doesn’t prove anything, because they haven’t actually read or understood it themselves.
Happens all the time and I’m not sure what to make of such people. I think it’s mostly that they don’t have the inclination or ability to actually read (or think, FTM) through anything complex and just link to something that contains certain key buzzwords that they are themselves using in their arguments. But I think there are others who are just so convinced that they’re right that they just assume any in depth treatment of the subject from a trustworthy source will naturally support them.
Of course they’re not going to give you anything more when challenged. If they were capable of dissecting the cite they wouldn’t have cited it to begin with. Or possibly even have espoused their position.
The ** WhyNot Feed the Troll **, where the poster answers a probable Troll OP with empathy, facts and resources, not out of a belief that the OP is sincere, but just in case some 14 year old out there really does have a suicidal goldfish wedged in his nose and googles what to do about it.
Also, the ensuing outrage and sputtering from other posters is funny.
I’ll have you know that I do it for fun, not to compensate for any inadequacies! My inadequacies are perfectly fine on their own and do not require compensation. 
[QUOTE=FreddyThePig]
The “I Didn’t Say Nothin” Defense, where every challenge is parried by denying that the poster said what is being challenged.
A: I think left-handed people should be lined up against a wall and shot.
B: That seems harsh. Why do you want to kill left-handed people?
A: I never said they should be killed. Read for comprehension, you retarded asshole. I said they should be shot. Do you really not understand the difference between being shot and being killed?
B: So the goal is what, to inflict pain? That seems pretty sadistic.
A: When did I say anything about inflicting pain? Did you flunk first grade? Here, I’ll say it in real short words–they should be shot. I don’t care if they’re anesthetized first. Pain has nothing to do with it.
B: So, why DO you want to shoot left-handed people?
A: God, you’re a lying sack of shit. When did I ever say I wanted to shoot them? I don’t even own a gun. I said they SHOULD BE SHOT. Jesus H. Christ, it’s hard arguing with illiterates.
[/quote]
Those are both great.
Another, that someone probably mentioned but I missed, is the “disprove an irrelevant part of the assertion, therefore believing one has disproved the assertion.” Well, it needs a pithier name.
Like:
“Owning a gun actually *increases *one’s odds of dying violently. In fact, cops are shot more by their own revolvers than anyone else’s weapon.”
“Cops don’t usually carry revolvers. Most of them carry Glocks, less bulky than a revolver, easier to draw, with a magazine in the handle. Revolvers are Hollywood-lore.”
“Whatever. The point is cops get shot by their own guns.”
“You’re basing your whole argument on myth, dude. Learn something about guns.”
Peace on you.
Those people are the worst! Always calling out other people for posting behavior they don’t like! It’s just disgusting. The only thing that could possibly make it worse would be if they dressed up their criticism in holier-than-thou sanctimony. That would be really annoying.
Thank goodness we don’t have any posters who do that.
You have to be careful about that. Doing it in public will get you arrested in most decent places
The “Must Responder”
Hasn’t read the op, hasn’t read any other posts, but “Must respond!!!”
Not even funny. (Due to excess truth content.)
**The Susanann: **Somebody asserts that nobody could have/could have had a certain personal experience. Many posters say that they have had that experience. The Susanann tells them that they are wrong.
If you don’t want to read the whole linked thread - People are talking about Arlo Guthrie’s 1967 song/story “Alice’s Restaurant.” Susanann asserts that it is “no longer entertaining in today’s world.” Many posters point out that they do find it entertaining. She insists that they are mistaken.
Dio was notorious for pulling The Susanann. I recall a thread where the OP was worried about why her husband’s sex drive could have suddenly diminished. Some posters suggested that periods of particular stress can lead to a temporarily diminished sex drive. Dio stated that they were wrong. Several male posters reported that they had themselves had the experience and explained the stressors that led to it. Nope, not possible, according to Dio They had not experienced what they said they experienced, and the OP’s husband was obviously having an affair or was maybe a pedophile or something.