Here's the thing though with these fallacies, some of them are just absolutely essential in discussion or debate to get things going (and others like ad Tribesman and ad hominem at times are just entertaining). Take appeals to authority, very important in all kinds of matters. Appeals to popularity and tradition also can sway my opinion a lot.

These so called logical fallacies (most of the ones listed) actually have very little to do with logic formally (they should actually be called "what some consider to be bad forms of reasoning"). For example, Sigurd brought up begging the question as an example of a fallacy. Actually, in purely logical terms (again logic is concerned with syntactical form of statements), circular reasoning is deductively valid - the epitome of "logic"). The only reason we don't like that type of argument is because:

1) it seems cheap (it probably is cheap - but it's logical )
2) Aristotle was playing some game and didn't want people to beg the question and so we use one of his crappy game rules to this day as one of the no-no's for discussion/debate (why does this guy have so much continued influence? )

And nothing makes me facepalm more when some guy comes in and says "OH argumentum ad ............... you're wrong lol!" Because (and I believe this also gets included in those lists of logical fallacies) just because someone makes a fallacious argument does not mean his point or his conclusion is false or wrong. On the flip side, anyone can support a false/wrong point or conclusion using an argument with a perfectly logical form. Already too much emphasis is put on the argument and not on the conclusion/point being made.

I like (some of) the org debates because aside from calling out strawmen (which should be done definitely kills discussion) these debates aren't usually flooded with people making laundry lists of the above mentioned fallacies. Which is good.