Dissent on Logical Fallacies

I have a dissenting view on the use of logical fallacies in rhetoric and argumentation:

I don't think pointing them out is of any use to a discussion.

It perhaps showcases the superior knowledge of the person pointing it out. That increase in 'welfare', is more than offset by the diversion into a discussion about the logical fallacies themselves.

I have pointed out a logical fallacy a total of one times, and not on a blog. I lived to regret it, not because of anything that the person who obviously commited it said in response, but because I realised that it was a barrier to communicating what I was saying. The person was completely put-off and no amount of discussion from then on would convince him of my position. This was despite my position being logical, cogent and supported by relevant facts.

I think it is important not to commit logical fallacies, but it is also important not to use them as a weapon to win brownie points. They might win the battle as it were, but would rankle enough souls to lose you the war.

I don't point out people's fallacious logic. I try not to commit logical fallacies. If I see someone commiting a logical fallacy I think a superior way of dealing with it is to work through the logic and illustrate the point, rather than leaving it at just jargon with a link.

If you see me commiting logical fallacies, you are welcome to point them out, or to work through them, or to use some other rhetorical innovation. However I am not immune to being put-off by the first.