> The one asserting that it is a fallacy has the burden  
> of pointing out where the warrants are lacking, and  
> the one defending the propostion as not a fallacy has  
> the burden of demonstrating the truth of the warrants  
> and showing how the fallacy asserter was in error.  
  
I'd be interested to find out where this set of rules comes from.  
  
Normally, when it's used as a technical term,  "fallacy" is used to    
describe errors of reasoning, often of the sort that may produce    
convincing but misleading results. We don't determine whether    
something is a fallacy by appealing to fact. So ad hominem arguments,    
for example, are not merely impolite, they are based on a fallacy and    
the results, however convincing, are false even if it can be shown    
empirically that your opponent is an inconsistent adulterer who is    
also as stupid as a tree.  
  
Some of the terms we use to describe false statements of fact are    
usually avoided in polite conversation and can get you kicked out of    
the House of Commons, but whatever they are they are not fallacies.    
Some of what have been described in this thread as fallacies might    
better be called myths.  
  
  
Ken Gordon