Arguman's fallacy system is really an anti-feature. It's impossible to separate the claim that a specific argument is a fallacy from a counter-argument. Many people seem to think that you can just take a word describing a kind of a argument, attach "fallacy" to it, and you have refuted it.

Ah, I guess I was wrong earlier when saying that this was not a problem with the tool.

Merely allowing fallacies seemingly has an adverse affect on the whole promise.

Thanks for this clarification.

Classic Fallacy Recursion Fallacy . You lose ! :)

Agreed. While logical fallacies are useful to teach people to avoid critical thinking pitfalls they are not useful to sift through the merits of arguments.

I hear you.

But is that a problem with the tool, or the lack of sufficient contribution on the topic from sufficiently interested and invested people like subject matter experts?