I see the same problem with the various lists of cognitive biases, rethoric devices, etc. I think the trick is to see them as patterns which should allow you t

I see the same problem with the various lists of cognitive biases, rethoric devices, etc. I think the trick is to see them as patterns which should allow you to more easily construct a counter argument - instead of pretending that merely pointing out the pattern itself would already be enough to disqualify the argument. e.g., in the examples from the "perfect solution" section, they didn't just shut down the discussion with "well, that's a Perfect Solution Fallacy, so your argument is invalid!", they actually explained in each case, why a non-perfect solution is still desirable. You could compare it with chess: An opponent is absolutely allowed to leave a piece vulnerable and you don't get an automatic win by just pointing out a bad position - you only get an advantage if you actually take the piece.