I'm not sure if you're kidding, but if not, that's an interesting rule of thumb. I can half see your point: when arguing with normal people, if you need to resort to pointing out their fallacies, it's probably not worth it. On the other hand, if you're arguing with a Philosophy major, then pointing out a fallacy doesn't necessarily signal failure. It's closer to starting round two.
The idea isn't to point them out, but to expose them without directly pointing them out.
The article's author has a different idea:
Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught.
The article is talking about a college debate, which has judges and rules, not a regular debate between people. The article also talks about how to point out the logical fallacy in a way that gets you the most points for it (which in some cases involves pointing it out directly, Latin and all, and in some cases doesn't).