To call everything a fallacy isn't a bad argument, it is bad argumentation, technically, so no.
See this related post here fallacies regarding invoking fallacies.
It is true that many people engage in what I've heard called fallacy mongering, which is the tendency to reduce all of your opponents' disagreeable points to fallacies, often with little regard to the actual definition of fallacy or the fallacy in question. Often times, fallacy mongers will accuse one of a fallacy in anticipation of a point before it is even made, often hurling the name of the fallacy exclusively:
You> Do you understand that scientists accept evolution as fact?
Them> Appeal to Authority!!!
You> Are scientists' expert opinions not weighted more heavily in a court of law or by society?
Them> Appeal to Popularity!!!
You> Okay, but doesn't the publication known as the US Federal Rules of Evidence show that scientific authority goes beyond mere percipience in specific matters?
Them> False Attribution!!!
In this slightly hyperbolic example, just by invoking a proposition in which experts play a role, the opponent in the argument believes they are refuting your conclusion that hasn't even been made. Of course, this is a sign that a partner in argumentation is often unaware that argument has widely accepted rules, such as recognizing burden of proof, staying confined to the question, acknowledging enthymemes, deciding upon acceptable logics, etc.
While you cannot stop others from fallacy mongering, you can learn to recognize it, and avoid it yourself by first and foremost recognizing:
- The difference between bias and fallacy.
- The differences between formal and informal fallacies.
- Multiple definitions of informal fallacies exist.
- Studying specific fallacies to know when they are and aren't actually present.
- Recognizing that informal fallacies are questions of context rather than content.
Francis Dauer in his Critical Thinking asserts a fallacy is:
an erroneous but frequently persuasive way of being led from a reason or circumstance to a conclusion.
But I find it better to recognize necessary and sufficient criteria and rely on three by T. Edward Damer in his Attacking Faulty Reasoning. An informal fallacy is an argument that is built in part or whole on:
- Unacceptable propositions. Can the truth of the proposition even be determined, for instance? You can't prove that many angels dance on the head of a pin. Do colorless green ideas really sleep furiously?
- Irrelevance. Is your claim or your conclusion pertinent? Is something non-sequitur? And your point is?
- Ungrounded: Even if a premise is acceptable and relevant, does it actually imply the conclusion in some manner? Can you get there from here?