[Alex3917]

"The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument."

Why not? It doesn't prove that what the other person believes is false, but it does show that their reasons/evidence for their view are wrong. (Assuming the logical fallacy isn't itself a straw man against some minor point in the other person's argument.) And it's usually it's not necessary (or even possible) to prove that x is false, only that there's no rational reason to believe x.

E.g. even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim that it's impossible that there is a god.

[bengillies]

> Why not?

Because, while it's a perfectly valid argument to make, technically winning an argument is different to actually winning an argument.

If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well.

The sad fact is that people listen to emotions because they can relate to them and, however invalid such an argument is, it's often the argument that wins.

[dragonwriter]

> If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well.

That's important, if your concern is convincing general-audience third parties.

In a forum like Hacker News (and, in fact, most internet fora I participate in), I'm usually more interested in connecting to a fairly educated audience and, more than convincing third parties that I am right, eliciting the best possible arguments for a position I don't already agree with, as, even if it doesn't change my mind to the opposing position, that's the best way to grow my understanding of the subject area.

As a result, I'm a lot less concerned about what might win accolades of "most people", and a lot more concerned with what will get someone who is interested in and capable of putting forth a strong argument to do so.

[aethertap]

Another simple reason I prefer not to name fallacies is that it leaves an unsupported assertion out there (namely, that whatever it was is in fact a fallacy). I usually engage in a debate mostly for my own benefit, to improve my thinking on something. I find that chasing down and understanding exactly why something does or does not qualify as an instance of a given fallacy is beneficial for that end, and it keeps me from making hasty judgments about what really is a fallacy in a given context.

[MetaCosm]

I guess we would really have to drill down to what you consider "winning an argument". I am not sure you and I would agree on what that means.

Is winning an argument convincing the person you are arguing with that you are right?

Is winning an argument convincing a 3rd party that you are right?

Is winning an argument whoever makes the greater number of valid points (debate style)?

... what does it really mean to win an argument to you?

[sageikosa]

In rhetoric, winning an argument is bringing people to your side. Personally I'd rather not have a bunch of illogical idiots on my side.

[wtallis]

Perhaps its clearer to say that pointing out a fallacy is an argument against their argument, but not an argument against their claim. When you dismantle an argument as fallacious, you're just leveling the playing field; you can't actually refute a claim that way.

[yk]

Because failure to present a proof does not constitute contradiction. This is the so called fallacy fallacy, as I learned earlier today, on reddit of all places.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy