Can I suggest that any claim that a logical fallacy has taken place needs to have it explained.
Just disagreeing with somebody should not constitute such a thing.
Don't most people here name the fallacy, so you can look it up and see what they're talking about? They should.
And to be absolutely clear, the logical fallacies we try to avoid are a fairly small list of the total. Strawman is the most abused, imo, which is a subset of the Red Herring. These divert discussion away from the focus, and they're really annoying to people who can't let something wrong go uncontested (which is probably most of us).
Personal attacks are another, and are a subset of the ad hominem. We attack ideas here, but since many find it hard to separate their ideas from themselves, there is much confusion and many misunderstandings.
For the most part, however, a logical fallacy is bad if that's all you've got. If I'm arguing that censoring internet access is like burning books, that it will inevitably lead to more restricted access, that's actually a Slippery Slope fallacy. However, if I can back that up with historical evidence where book burning led to more book burning (which isn't that hard to find), then it becomes more than fallacious logic.