That selects for trivial pattern-matching ability, not the ability to evaluate arguments.
Engaging in productive discourse is not associated with knowing the names of fallacies.
Engaging in productive discourse is not associated with knowing the names of fallacies.
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.