The whole point of being able to recognise a so-called "logical fallacy" is that you should have a sort of ready-made refutation of it, since you can recognize it and already know in advance how to defeat the argument.
The point is not to only be able to point out where logical fallacies have been used, that is next to useless. Just pointing out a fallacy has been used is the same thing as naming a type of argument and does not actually help convince anyone, unless you are debating for the benefit of a group of pedantic losers.
Take an ad hominem argument for example: the correct response to "you're ugly and therefore wrong," putting aside what the honourable reaction to an insult would be, is to counter that being ugly is not actually relevant to the point, and the argument does not matter. Just stating that that was an ad hominem attack only names the argument rather than refutes it.
Knowing fifteen different types of logical fallacy and their associated names doesn't do anything to help convince anyone. Knowing fifteen different types of logical fallacy and their associated refutations, i.e. why they are fallacies, will.