I think understanding logical fallacies is wonderful, especially if you seek to understand why they are fallacies and improve your own thinking and arguing to avoid them.
However, people that pull logical fallacies out in an argument are probably not arguing in a convincing way! Either the person they are arguing against is actually succumbing to the fallacy, and in that case they would rarely even know what is going on when you name it, or they totally understand it and were using shorthand or just phrasing it in a way that opened them up to that attack, but a less intentionally close reading would reveal a deeper argument.
However, people that pull logical fallacies out in an argument are probably not arguing in a convincing way! Either the person they are arguing against is actually succumbing to the fallacy, and in that case they would rarely even know what is going on when you name it, or they totally understand it and were using shorthand or just phrasing it in a way that opened them up to that attack, but a less intentionally close reading would reveal a deeper argument.
Of course, I'm setting up a false choice here!