I tend to think of people who engage in arguments consisting of these logical fallacies as the equivalent of sports fans. Nothing wrong with arguing about who is the best team, but in the end, it is one entire level of involvement removed from actually playing a sport.

You can be a complete expert on team stats, trivia, tactics and history, but that unfortunately doesn't mean you actually know squat about sports. Similarly, those who try to back up their logic by resorting to one of the logical fallacies you mentioned understand as much about thinking and logic as sports fans know about sports.

Sadly, sports fans are often more rabid about the game than the athletes actually are. Athletes share a sense of camaraderie, because they all understand that in the end, athletics is about you against yourself no matter what type of sport it is. Games are won on the practice field, and the most intractable foe will be your fear and your laziness. Self honesty and introspection is the price you must pay to be good.

Similarly, none of us have to know anything about formal philosophy to understand philosophy, because philosophy is intuitive. And until you start to really try to understand yourself and reality, reading philosophy texts does about as much good as memorizing plays before you try to play a sport.

Great post dwinblood!