I see where you're coming from, and that's generally true. Though, it's a bit more complicated. Debates on the internet aren't formal and nobody wants to go full lawyering mode. Those who do, are doing it selectively, are disliked and don't win over anyone. Some fallacies invalidate the argument in a strict sense, and if we were lawyering, I could reject your argument wholesale because of some error in reasoning, and because we assume burden of proof (i.e. everyone must make their case, and you can reject someone's case and remain unconvinced without presenting something better). But we aren't lawyering, usually.
RationalWikians are often wannabe skeptics , who leap into lawyering mode, and who want to "win" on the internet, and look for ammunition in articles. Hence, it's important to them that only the "right side" (as in tribalism) gets ammunition, and the opponent is deprived of it. They typically don't care what's true, and don't understand that discourse is about finding out what's the best approximation of truth, or education. At least, this generation of editors doesn't get it.
Some fallacies belong into the realm of rhetoric, such as the trusted ad hominem. They are about persuation. Most people believe ad hominem is just a fancy way of saying "insult". But an ad hominem is the attempt to undermine a position by drawing attention to the character, motivation, habits etcetera of the speaker. Normally, the truth is thought independent of everything. For example, a blind person can say your car is green (without prior information), and you cannot dismiss it because she's blind and cannot know. Either the car is green, or it isn't. But of course, this becomes tricky when you cannot easily check it. Typical ad hominems are "this person was caught lying before, therefore we should not believe her!", and it's a fallacy because even a notorious liar could tell the truth this time.
I found that almost every article has at least some nonsense in it. Stab anywhere, and you find some retardeness. Here's one of today, trying to whitewash
Bible views on LGTB. They also claim that sex was genetic, which is truly remarkable, since the same folks are otherwise uncritical believers of Laci Green et al, who promote the view that sex and gender are social constructions. Yesterday I saw this Sarkeesian rubbish:
She no longer does? Really? And both sources 73 and 74 lead to the
same article, and this was corrected by Hipocrite, as an attempt to set the record straight.
Here's the talk page argument, with the full Dunning-Kruger spectrum on display.
Note how cocksure and overconfident they are again. Quote mining! The full context totally changes everything! She actually no longer believes it, and this was becoming clear from the tiny hedge. Here's what Sarkeesian actually says in full context, according to the article they have added (/facepalm)
(just read the bold parts, emphasis by me)
... and now that's she's woke, no longer believes in empowerment of individual choices ...
In other words, Sarkeesian believes "the world as it really is" is made of "systems of oppression" of "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" which form a "oppressive framework". How does that softens her view that "everything is problematic" in full context?
Of course, it doesn't. When she says "you learn how to pick and choose your battles and that sort of thing." the hedge is -- at best (even that is arguable) -- on "point it all out". In other words, everything is problematic, but you cannot always point it all out without being obnoxious, where you might want to pick your battles. That's the qualifier, at best. And yet, here they are on the talk page, being cocksure in all their glorious retardedness and self-congratulatory how someone else is allegedly deceptive. Well, Rational1 is an idiot, but in this case, less than the others.
