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.

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.

I have heard the term "argumentum ad minutiam" used for this kind of situation, which could be translated as "argument against a minor point". It is a variant of the strawman argument.

See e.g. here: https://denkfehler.online/wiki/rhetorik/scheinargumente/strohmann_argument/hauptseite#ablenkung_auf_detailfragen (in German).