Courts generally enforce arbitration clauses even when they're consumer-facing and one-size-fits-all. You'd still have to go to court to enforce the claim if one party didn't pay it, but you probably wouldn't have to re-argue the case; the courts apparently just verify that any procedural agreements were upheld and then accept the arbitration decision.
From reading up on pitfalls of arbitration clauses, it seems the opposite problem is stickier: arbitration is by design not subject to legal appeal, and attempts to carve out rights of legal appeal in arbitration clauses have failed in court.
I'm referring to some problem that renders specific provisions of a contract unenforceable. In some jurisdictions, absent a severability clause, the entire contract could be thrown out, meaning that judge.me would no longer have consent of the parties to arbitrate the dispute.
But I agree: arbitration vs. litigation is typically an "either or" scenario; you don't get the best of both worlds.
From reading up on pitfalls of arbitration clauses, it seems the opposite problem is stickier: arbitration is by design not subject to legal appeal, and attempts to carve out rights of legal appeal in arbitration clauses have failed in court.