I think you're envisioning this in a pessimistic way. I totally agree that the end conclusion "this statement is fallacious" is pretty useless. But I assume th

I think you're envisioning this in a pessimistic way. I totally agree that the end conclusion "this statement is fallacious" is pretty useless. But I assume that a working process would also yield the chain of judgements (A is right, B is right, C is wrong, etc). I think that would be VERY useful. People who become captured by propaganda and lies generally are not sold on 100% of the propaganda. There are certain elements they care more about and others they can ignore. A way to deprogram people through conversation is to just ask them to explain things about their views and ask them to reconcile them with reality. The reconciliation is painful for them and that pain keeps people "in" irrational beliefs - but it's also how people find their way out. Once they no longer associate themselves with the conspiracy, they can discard beliefs associated with it...provided they can think through them. I think being able to automatically decompose a fact check into the elements of what "is true" and "is false" in a statement would be HUGE. An essential tool in helping people escape from information swamps.