Hi lawyers! I have a question about argumentation from fallacy.

Argument: if numerous fallacies can be irrefutably applied (unable to reject the fallacious argument, but reliance on the argumentation -as itself- a fallacious argument as the refutable fact) does that constitute itself as a valid argument? if it's already a fallacious argument, what is--that--called? if it's not called anything, I would prefer to call it the (logical not fallacious) Argument from too many coincidences. Like, one might line up an army of fallacious arguments, and say "I invoke the argument from too many coincidences" and maybe that's a solid argument, or at least combined, an argument that needs must be answered/spoken to by the opposing lawyer or addressed by the jury or judge. I am Ken, I am not a law student, or lawyer, I just happened upon this idea while arguing a personal stance on an issue. Also, I don't have any courses in formal litigation, or training in argument. I just have read a lot of the known fallacies people rely on during argument.I never took logic