History

What kind of fallacy is it whereby someone, in order to support the claims one is making, with very little evidence outside of just stories pulled from supposed memory, a quote by someone famous who knew the person, claiming that said person doesn't lie? 

What fallacy is it to claim one person's interpretation of history is more valid than others because it offers a more "inclusive" interpretation of the past, and therefore if you argue against it, you do so not out of a pursuit of truth, but are solely influenced by prejudice? 

I'm having some difficulty understanding the first one. It might be more clear if you posted a sample argument with specific points 

That second one, depending on the context, might not be a bad argument. Pretty much any event in history is going to involve some intergroup conflict, and accounts from every group are going to have some bias. An interpretation of those events that considers the perspectives of all involved is going to have an inherent advantage. For instance, if you're talking about westward expansion in the United States, you're going to get a skewed version of events if you don't consider the perspectives of the Native tribes they were displacing. That said, if the person is just using the word inclusive, but isn't actually considering a broader range of evidence, that would likely be political correctness fallacy .

That said, historians with access to the same evidence will often come to different conclusions, so a perspective that considers multiple viewpoints isn't automatically correct or above criticism. To claim that a person can only disagree with a conclusion due to prejudice is ad hominem (circumstantial) . However, if a person is clearly favoring one conclusion over another because it aligns with the view of their in group rather than the strength of the evidence/argument, then saying a person is prejudiced may be a valid criticism of their reasoning skills.

The fallacies in question here are masquerading in party hats pretending they’re facts, but we see right through their festive disguise.

The first one is parading around as Anecdotal Fallacy decked with the confetti of personal experiences or claims without supporting facts. A bit of he-said-she-said, suitable for around the campfire, but not reliable for factual claims.

The second one, on the other hand, is resigned to his corner, sipping on his gin and tonic of Appeal to Pity or Argumentum ad Misericordiam, saying "if you argue with me, it only shows your prejudice". It's suggestive of emotional manipulation, tugging at heartstrings rather than appealing to fair logical reasoning. As much as inclusivity is important, let's not forget that historical interpretation should rely on the Cokes of facts and Pizza Hut of evidence, not just sugary emotional appeals. We are not heartless, but our thinking hats need more than sentimental whispers to tick.