I like this idea, and I'd like to see it developed further. I don't see any reason why FGCAs shouldn't be catalogued and learned alongside logical fallacies for the same reasons.

I guess the important distinction would be that certain FGCAs can be used non-fallaciously, and some of these seem to have valid use-cases, like pointing out confirmation bias and mind-projection fallacy. Others are fallacious in their fully-general form, but have valid uses in their non-fully-general forms, so it is important to distinguish these. (e.g. pointing out vagueness or that something is too complicated and has too many dependencies for a given argument to have much weight.)

Great post!

I apologize for mentioning this, but there were a lot of typos in this, which made it a bit hard to read. I want to link this to a few friends who are not LWers, but when I am not familiar with the source of something, typos make me question the credibility of the author (they also provide an easy excuse to discount things people don't want to hear). I don't want that to happen when I show people, so I figured I'd help you out if you feel like cleaning it up a bit. Here's a quick list I put together for you:

• Add comma after "But if (s)he is not aware of that"
• Change "prone of" to "prone to"
• "counter measures" should be "countermeasures"
• "against which" should be "against whom" in "...clever arguer against which"
• Add comma after "humble stance"
• Change "FCGA" to "FGCA" in first bullet of The List and in first sentence under headings of both Self-Sealing Belief and Preventative Action
• The third bullet is empty and fourth bullet seems like it is supposed to contains sub-cases of the missing third bullet
• Under Nihilism, "Live" should be "Life" and the "-" needs to be closed after "including arguments"
• "I don't like your opinion but I you are may have your own."
• "Yur" => "Your" after "Humans are different"
• In "the thing you are arguing about has evolved and exists just because of that, not because it is true or a valid argument." Just because of what? Evolution?
• Opened paren but no contents or close-paren: "...more likely and more stable ("