The way I see it, there are two paradoxes implicit in most (or all) arguments: 1. If the outcome of an argument matters, it matters in the sense that we are em

The way I see it, there are two paradoxes implicit in most (or all) arguments: 1. If the outcome of an argument matters, it matters in the sense that we are emotionally invested in the outcome. The word argument itself implies an inextricably emotional component. 2. Most apparently fallacious arguments boil down to abuses of analogy. But analogy is also, fundamentally, how induction works. Unless the premises of the argument are completely unambiguous (and they rarely are), "rationality" only gets us so far. IMO, the most important part about learning these "fallacies" is learning when they aren't fallacies at all, but actually the best tools we have for grappling with a complex problem, and hopefully arriving at some unexpected clarification.