Argument from Anger/Strawman

The issue here is whether or not illegal immigrants should be deported once law enforcement official identify them as such. Of course, no matter what one's stand is on this issue one should offer good reasons for one's position.

Though one can cull out something like arguments on both sides the escalation to yelling as if that is supposed to show something is an example of 'argument from anger.' This really heats up at 2:20. The point here is that some individuals may think that O'Reilly is winning his argument (or that Rivera is successfully counter-attacking [though he does ask O'Reilly at one point to "cool your jets"]) merely because they are getting loud.

A more clear example of a fallacy that occurs is a strawman (possibly a rhetorical explanation/circumstantial ad-hominem as well) at 2:55 where O'Reilly accuses Rivera of wanting "open boarder anarchy."

This could have very well been staged and to a certain segment of the population this kind of stuff is probably entertaining. Nevertheless, the rhetorical techniques mentioned above are documented.

There are at least two other fallacies in clip above. Can you spot them?