We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
All of those examples were simplistic. Good for teaching I suppose. But so simplistic that I can't imagine anyone using those exact quotes. So why not use something relevant something we have all seen? I think the answer is that more complex arguments can and are dismissed with the classical claim that it is a fallacy so therefore you cannot possibly be right. But in fact it is quite possible and even probable that an argument can be both correct and qualify as a fallacy. IMHO to simply state that something is a fallacy and therefore dismiss it is no more correct than saying that something you said is racist (sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc.) and dismissing it. The question still remains, i.e. is the argument true/correct? forget the flippant replies is the argument right and you are simply grasping at straws in an attempt to not have to deal with it.
I say this not to simply disagree but to have people understand that often when the opponent in a debate pulls the fallacy card out that it may mean exactly nothing except that they do not have a good response to the argument at hand. Do not be fooled by it. It is a effective tried and true debating tactic but it is dishonest.
Indeed, a tactic commonly used by the "social justice" crowd is first to plant shills in the audience who will offer bad, fallacious arguments against the "social justice" position. Then after stating that position, you ignore the people who have good counter-arguments and respond only to the shills, thus "proving" (to those not paying attention) that none of your opponents know what they're talking about.