with many examples of how "fallacies" can be reasonable forms of argument.

I strongly suspect 'reasonable' is being used in the most common, and most erroneous, sense - that of "not striking the speaker as being unusual or producing cognitive dissonance".

Fallacies are, by their nature, invalid arguments. There are sometimes valid arguments related loosely to the content of certain fallacies, but they should be asserted rather than the invalid form.

many in the community think it is sometimes unhelpful.

(edit to alter content to what I now think is a better phrasing)

These individuals need to be publicly identified as irrationalists.