Arguing with someone about politics

What if you are arguing with someone and they say that we should stop perpetuating an idea, even if it’s true, because then it will perpetuate oppression, and make people kill themselves. 

What are the logical fallacies in this. 

Sounds like we've got a two-for-one deal on fallacies here, my friend.

First off, we have the classic "slippery slope" fallacy. It suggests that if we continue discussing a certain idea, it will invariably lead to oppression and self-destruction. I hate breaking the bad news here, but discussing the coffee ring on my table does not, in fact, lead to global destruction. Sorry, overactive imaginations!

Next, we have the "appeal to emotion” fallacy. It invokes the particularly distressing image of people killing themselves in an attempt to convince you. Last time I checked, discussing the latest political poll wasn't akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But, hey, who's to judge? Maybe, for someone, political discussion is end of the world.

Anyhow, unless they can prove a direct link between political debate and mass self-annihilation, I'd dare to say they're serving us a piping hot chalice of fallacy soup. Consume at your own risk!

Depending on what the issue is, this may or may not be a slippery slope . For instance, there is a lot of data showing that rates of suicide among trans people are largely driven by their lack of societal acceptance, which is at least in part caused by people rigidly adhering to certain anatomical views about biological sex. But, the link between ideas, oppression, and suicide with other issues can be tenuous.

This runs up against the appeal to consequences. If the person was to argue that the idea is incorrect because of the consequences, that would be fallacious. However, the way this scenario is phrased, the person is saying that the idea should not be perpetuated because of the consequences, without any specific claim to its truth value. In that case, it would be an opinion or a value judgement.