[bunderbunder]

And, on the other side of the coin, I fear it encourages folks to fall victim to the 'fallacy fallacy': Thinking that the presence of a logical fallacy in an argument implies that its thesis is incorrect.

On a completely different coin, nobody ever won an argument by treating it as a game of Spot the Logical Fallacy. All you'll win playing that game is a reputation for being insufferable.

[repsilat]

> the 'fallacy fallacy': Thinking that the presence of a logical fallacy in an argument implies that its thesis is incorrect.

It's worse than that. Paying too much attention to rigour and the mathematical validity of arguments unduly privileges strict logical argumentation over "traditional" informal argumentation.

Outside of technical areas there are almost no arguments amenable to pure logical argumentation. Think about it - why would you be arguing over something that can be mechanically deduced with certainty? In most circumstances logical syllogisms and the like are used only as "glue" to hold the real argument together.

We should recognise that arguments using these "fallacies" don't have absolute persuasive power, but we shouldn't go so far as to say that they can have no persuasive power at all.

[jiggy2011]

I think pointing out a fallacy can sometimes be a good defense against somebody who is insisting that something is a mechanical certainty when it is not.

[bunderbunder]

Yes. But more often's the case that the fearless fallacy hunter fallaciously finds fallibility by fantasizing formality or finality.

Thereby committing a fallacy himself in the form of a straw man.

[jiggy2011]

I see what you did there , I think I'm going to use that.

[jiggy2011]

That is true, but I think it is good to educate people to spot common mistakes that are made during arguments.

For example I often see people winning casual arguments by overusing emotive language , belittling the opinion of their opponent or by misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what they are saying.