Formalizing and naming templates of fallacies and dirty tricks... it's kind of a fallacious trick in itself.
Logically valid, convincing, and the way we actually think a completely different. There are places where these come together, often requiring a lot of effort.
The reality that we, all of us, way through the slush. None rise above it.
To take the least noxious example, stories work on us. Stories. Narratives. They're very central to communicating, central to how we make sense of things. Who is what in which story.
Telling the story, is unanimously agreed by all practitioners.. primary to convincing people, or even getting them to listen to you in the first place.
Is this logically sound? Is it conducive to keeping track of one's assumptions, presumptions and biases? Of course not. It is, how we work though.
The way formal logic works, and the way we think, talk and convince one another.. they are very far apart. That doesn't mean we can't grasp logic. We can. It does mean, that we don't employ it on its own very often.
The argument that would take, this post is the "central" path. The other half of this dichotomy. The assumed default state.
People say things for a lot of reasons, and then argue their way back.