> That selects for trivial pattern-matching ability, not the ability to evaluate arguments. I think the chances of somebody learning to match the entries witho

> That selects for trivial pattern-matching ability, not the ability to evaluate arguments. I think the chances of somebody learning to match the entries without understanding at all are fairly low. Computers could do it of course, but that's a different problem. > Engaging in productive discourse is not associated with knowing the names of fallacies. The former is not a necessary consequence of the latter and the latter is not a prerequisite for the former, but I think if your debate only involves people that know about common logical fallacies it's likely to be a better debate.