Logical Fallacies

The whole point of being able to recognise a so-called "logical fallacy" is that you should have a ready-made refutation of it, since you recognize it and already know in advance how to defeat the argument.

The point is not to simply be able to point out where logical fallacies have been used, that's next to useless.

If your only attempt at refutation of a "logical fallacy" is simply to schreech "that's an appeal to nature!" (for example), you aren't actually arguing against the fallacy, you're just naming the type of argument.

Take an ad hominem, for example. If you advocated something and I said "you're ugly, therefore you're wrong," that's an ad hominem argument. Great. What you should do in response is say something like "even if that were true, being ugly doesn't affect the righteousness of my ideas; your argument is therefore invalid". What you - too often - see people say is something like "That's an ad hominem. I've won!". That's not correct, all this second person has done is name the type of argument being employed; they haven't refuted it.

Knowing fifteen different types of logical fallacy and their associated names doesn't do anything to help you win any debates. Knowing fifteen different types of logical fallacy and their associated refutations, i.e.why they are fallacies, however, will.