I'm always impressed when someone mentions the fallacyfallacy.
The important thing to remember about the fallacyfallacy is that, YES, although it is "possible" to produce a cogent, logically-coherent appeal to LOGOS, that tacks on a few fallacious statements (therefore "proving" that the fallacies themselves do not "disqualify" any SOUND LOGIC that may have been presented) it is important to remember that the fallacies THEMSELVES do-not and can-not validate any claim ON THEIR OWN.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy.
Indeed!
The FallacyFallacy is the one that I find myself most likely to commit, and have to check myself quite often to not disqualify the argument (nor the arguer) completely, simply because a fallacy was used.
I agree, (it's important not to rush-to-disqualify) however, in the absence of explicit logic, no claim can be considered sound (without explicit logic, the claim is a naked appeal-to-ignorance).
That's why I always try to STEELMAN my opponent's claims.
Yes I noticed that you do that. Very nice.