Question

...
Ao Tensor

De-Emphasizing the relevant argument (shallow response), while attacking the interesting one.

What is this fallacy called if exist? I haven't found a name of it, or maybe new fallacy?
Soft-Burrying, Tokenize the Relevant (label I made for fun)
Acknowledges the point being made, has the capacity to counter it, but chooses not to elaborate because it's no longer the pressure point.

 

Logical Form:
A provides argument X, Y, Z (X is critical, while Y and Z less relevant to X)


B argues Y, and Z, while minimizing X as an argument

 

Often requires these conditions below:
B gives a shallow or dismissing response to X


Effect: A loses the momentum not because it was resolved, but because B didn't give enough "traction" to keep going.

Consequence: A is effectively "talked past."

Happened when:
B knows how to tackle X
B choose the interesting argument, Y and Z
B de-emphasize argument X, *"Okay, but I guess you can say that is true"*
A isn't ignored
A isn't distorted.
B doesn’t derail to a new topic.

This is not (according to me):
1.  cherry picking , because cherry-picking means to only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. This one fallacy I provided still consider replying to the relevant, though shallow. (A isn't ignored)
2. red herring , because red-herring means to **ignore the relevant argument**, by providing **argument that is unrelated/distracting**. This one fallacy I provide does not **ignore nor distract**, it still consider the argument, though shallow. (B doesn’t derail to a new topic.)
3. strawman fallacy , because straw-man means to substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument. The fallacy I provided does not distort the argument, it de-emphasize + but may or may distort. (A isn't distorted)

Example:
P: "The pipe is cloaked everywhere (evic A), and my kitchen's pipe is not working (evic B)


Q: "Okay? I guess you can say the pipe is cloaked everywhere, it happen in my house too (resp A), but you are wrong to say evic B! (resp B)

(resp A) does not attack (evic A) nor support it, it simply gives a shallow response.

Sorry if bad format.

asked on Sunday, Jun 08, 2025 09:20:07 AM by Ao Tensor

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Mr. Wednesday
1

I think this would be a case of avoiding the issue . As you said, they're not creating a separate argument to distract from the relevant one. And while they're not ignoring it entirely, but they are failing to address the point of the argument. I think the one thing that sets this apart from a normal case of avoiding the issue is that the relevant argument is nested among a few others, which might make it easier for someone to ignore that argument without others noticing.

 I think the thing you'd have to be careful with, many topics are complex and have multiple prongs to their arguments. People on opposite sides may have differing opinions on what the most important aspect is, and choosing how much effort to devote to each one can wind up being a rhetorical choice rather than a logic problem.

answered on Sunday, Jun 08, 2025 08:39:26 PM by Mr. Wednesday

Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Ao Tensor writes:

You're right that this is much of a rhetorical choice than a reasoning problem. But to say this is a case of avoiding the issue is rather too broad, I think? Because the example I provide is more of a superficial acknowledgment and then followed by deliberate de-emphasis, rather to fail to address the point of the argument. I saw a similar rhetorical choice happen in other argument.

User A: The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming 97% agreement. Plus, extreme weather events are increasing. And fossil fuel lobbying distorts public understanding.
User B: Sure, a lot of scientists agree, but that's always changing (issue addressed, rather shallow). What we really need to talk about is how ineffective renewables are right now.

posted on Monday, Jun 09, 2025 05:23:24 AM