Appeal to authority. I disagree with it, but sure I'd discuss it with you, I'm feeling more confident about your honesty.

When used correctly, wiki is easier to use then an actual paper as you get links directly to the papers. Therefore if he reads something which he feels is dubious, then he can click the link and *blam* he's at a peer-reviewed paper. It's simply one click more awkard then giving the paper. The reason I am giving him wiki instead of the paper is because his knowledge is so lacking in the field that this was relevant to that he needed to do a lot of reading up on it - more reading then is possible with just one paper. 
In short, when someone only has a high school education on certain topics, wiki is a very useful resource in getting that person to catch up on topics. It's not like I can post the guy my lecuture notes or text books. 

I'll second this.....kind of ironic when both sides committ the same fallacy when trying to counteract each other's argument.   : )

I'll also say, I wouldn't consider a couple of the fallacies listed actual fallacies , at least not necessarily....depends on the context of the argument.

ah i see what happened, i think hes confusing argument with premise, and thinking the premise is the first statement followed by supporting arguments.

Again we're dealing with semantics here. In my formal proofs, we had:

1) Claim

2) Premises

3) Deductions

4) Conclusion

Claim is what we're trying to prove. 

Premises - the knowledge base.

Conclusion should match Claim. I (Falsely) used Premise as Claim. I was incorrect. I've been out of University for a couple years, I'm rusty, but the process remains the same despite my improper usage of the word.

You still haven't addressed the entire point though, which is your strawman. It wasn't intentional, but it was there. Agree?

@Other dude, wikipedia isn't credible. End of. Again, you'll learn when you get to high school.

You know what's interesting.....I've actually seen wikipedia cited in academic texts.

Prove it. Otherwise it's an anecdotal fallacy.

I'm going to be complete honest here and no offense but just truth is intended with the following. I think the problem is that you're autistic and that you can't accept that when used correctly wiki can be a useful tool due to the symptom of restricted behaviour because no matter what reasoning I present to you, you don't actually logically refute it, you just repeat yourself like a stuck record. Such behaviour leaves me to think that you are limited in your scope for accepting new ideas to such a degree that it is actually a debilitation on your behalf. If you could shed some light on this idea that would be appreciated as I cannot see a need in furthering a point if a party has a literal inability to accept new viewpoints. 

War & Ethics: A New Just War Theory by Nicolas Fotion. I don't have a pdf....its an actual book, but the citation is clearly on page 165....it actually cites two wikipedia pages for Chapters 7 and 8.

It surprised me too....that's why I remembered it. Funny thing is....its actually a good read on just war theory.

i am always honest in admitting, as I've shown you many times previously.

And it's not appeal to authority, I'm not saying they're right because they're scientists, I'm saying it is proven and if you'd like i will prove them to you as well. That is the opposite of appeal to authority because I'm saying if you don't take their word for it, I'll discuss it further.

Taking the the understanding that all animals are alike is as much of an appeal as saying logic works. ironically, logic can be used to prove logic works. You don't question that, now do you?

For instanve, animals have different traits

some traits are shared  by all anim

therefore there is at least one trait that all animals share.

There are some traits that all animals share is proven by

carbon based life is a trait

x has this trait

y has this trait, etc etc until all animals are listed

all animals share at least this one trait.

couple with

statements proving other traits.

You see, it's just working backwards through proven conclusions that I arrive at all animals are alike, and thereby, humans having the same traits as animals is therefore natural.