Things you must know to not be stupid

This is incredibly insubstantial. Why not just hit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies ?

Dammit! I'm stupid cause I believe in the following exchange Alice has expressed an opinion (not an argument(see below)) and Bob has, correctly, brought into question her biases. I also don't consider calling a woman a woman as an "attack".

Alice: Women should have more rights. Bob: Of course you would say that. You’re a woman. Charlie: You have done nothing to make her argument less credible, you have only attacked her.

An argument would have to include why women should have more rights and hopefully proof that they lack rights now and for the pro's a plan or at least list of rights they need rather than vague "more". In other words arguments must contain facts with which people can verify or refute your claims. No wonder Bob, plays the weak bias card, Alice has offered nothing more substantial to support her point.

A little amusing that the article claims you shouldn't use Ad Hominem attacks because otherwise you will be "stupid".

There's another common mistake I notice a lot, but I don't have a snappy name for it.

Maybe "Basing a conclusion on too little information."

As an example, I recently read an article (possibly on Hacker News?) in which a guy was working on his free-throw. He tried adding more backspin to his shot and made 4/4. He then tried 400 free throws using his old and new technique and found that in comparison, his old shot was better.

4. The plural of "fireman" is "firemen" (or, even better, "firefighters").

4.) <--- put a space after parentheses and before the title