Yes, and Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics offers up a nice long list of dishonest tactics - noting there are only two intellectually honest tactics. Here's a list of dishonest tactics - for explanation, go to John Reed's site:
Update: No, I am not asserting that those persons cited above have a monopoly on intellectually dishonest debate tactics.
- Name calling: Opponents are "like Nazis"
- Changing the subject: "Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to 'sabotage' the democratic process."
- Questioning the motives of the opponent: "The other side has ties to big insurance"
- Vagueness: Obama's Vague Promise Of Change"
- Claiming membership in a group affiliated with audience members: "Without that commitment, many of us wouldn't be here today. I am one of those people. My grandfather - Stanley Dunham - enlisted after Pearl Harbor and went on to march in Patton's Army."
- Accusation of taking a quote out of context: "Those comments were taken out of context"
- Straw man: "If we do nothing . . ."
- Argument from intimidation: "Only those who are racist would oppose . . ."
- Innuendo: ""Separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-American and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately..."