I don’t have a lot to say about this one, to be honest.
Skippy: We shouldn’t vote for the Peanut Butter Party candidates because they are stinky and gross (ad hominem)
Scooter: That is a fallacy, so therefore we should vote for the Peanut Butter Party candidates.
The logical problem with Scooter’s argument is: he wants you to believe that something that is argued for based on false premises is itself invalid. However, the conclusion might have been true (“we REALLY SHOULDN’T vote for the PBP candidates, not because they’re stinky and gross, but because they want to murder everyone in their sleep”), even though Skippy argued for it based on a fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy argues for the importance of making one’s original arguments based on sound logic. If the original dialogue had been:
Skippy: We shouldn’t vote for the Peanut Butter Party candidates because they (verifiably, provably, etc.) want to murder everyone in their sleep!
Scooter: …
(unless they are at a pro-murdering-everyone-in-their-sleep convention, it’s not clear where Scooter can go from here other than with one of the numerous other fallacies!)