[bradrn]

Well, if you really want to go this route, you can beat them at their own game and accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy. (A nice illustration: https://theupturnedmicroscope.com/comic/logical-fallacies-ar...)

That being said, I do think it’s important to avoid fallacious reasoning — it helps in making arguments clearer. As mentioned above, just because someone uses a fallacy doesn’t mean their conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that you can prove their argument wrong. (And any reply should ideally be phrased in these terms: ‘your argument has problem X’ is easier to respond to than ‘your argument has fallacy Y’.) Furthermore it means they are thinking less clearly than they perhaps should be.

[netr0ute]

The Fallacy Fallacy doesn't actually do anything because it is covered by itself and creates a loop.

[entropicdrifter]

I'd say the bigger problem is that it's roughly equivalent to saying, "Just because my argument is bad doesn't mean I'm wrong."

I mean, yes, that's true, but you have yet to prove yourself correct, so why should anyone change their mind?

[ElFitz]

And that’s how you get a stack overflow.

Always remember your exit condition when doing recursion, folks!

[eivarv]

And by extension, fallacious reasoning means that you have no good reason to take what the reasoner is arguing as true (unless they can a non-fallacious argument) – right?

The fact that an argument is fallacious doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, but there does (logically, by necessity) exist (at least) a non-fallacious argument for a correct conclusion.

[gauravjain13]

Yes, exactly this. It’s useful to understand biases: cognitive diversions from the truth.

Echoing OP’s sentiment: How one uses/weaponizes such knowledge depends on one’s goals: to win petty ego battles in debate or seek the truth?

[mistermann]

> just because someone uses a fallacy doesn’t mean their conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that you can prove their argument wrong.

One way this can go wrong is if the two people are thinking at different levels of abstraction or dimensionality (variables), especially when one or both participants don't understand what that means (which seems to be "most" people in the general public).

[overboard2]

What do you mean?

[lhorie]

> accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy

But then, you're just doing an ad hominem...

[entropicdrifter]

That's not an ad hominem. You're attacking their argument, not them as a person.

An ad hominem would be like saying, "Oh yeah, well you're an alcoholic", for instance, as though that could discredit their argument even if it were true.

[robbedpeter]

I know I am, but what... am... I?