What fallacy is this?

From here:

You began this argument by cherry picking articles and accusing me of being a liar.

You've yet to prove anything but that you are blindly devoted to liberalism.

I said you were, you denied it.

Who is the liar again?

When I ask how I cherry picked anything:

Because you only read articles you agree with, and then apparently implicitly agree with them.

How do you know they're true? You're going by periodicals and opinion panels and gossips mags...anything to substantiate what you believe already.

Anything except looking into the facts YOURSELF.

Except he does nothing to prove my sources wrong in any way. He even links to an ancient aliens move and says:

Here's a bunch of videos about ancient aliens. Get ready to have your mind blown. It wouldn't be online if it wasn't true!

 

Basically, he doesn't addres my sources and show how they are wrong. Is this an appeal to bias?

The argument presented exhibits several fallacies and biases:

1. **Ad Hominem**: The individual attacks your character by saying you are “blindly devoted to liberalism,” rather than addressing the merits of your argument or evidence. This is an attempt to discredit you personally rather than engage with the issue substantively.

2. **Straw Man**: The person misrepresents your position by implying that you only read articles that agree with your preexisting beliefs without any evidence to substantiate this claim. This simplifies and distorts your argument to easily refute it.

3. **Circular Reasoning**: They assert that you are the liar in the argument without providing evidence, and then use this assertion to claim you are not objective. This is circular because the conclusion (you are a liar) is used as a premise without independent evidence.

4. **Poisoning the Well**: By accusing you of cherry-picking and not verifying facts yourself, he preemptively discredits any sources you might cite, suggesting that they are unreliable without specific evidence to that effect.

5. **Tu Quoque (You Too)**: The individual indirectly deflects from the discussion by implying hypocrisy in your argument. By suggesting you only accept information that supports your views, they avoid engaging with the validity of your evidence.

6. **Red Herring**: Linking to "ancient aliens" videos is a distraction tactic. It diverts the debate to a tangential, irrelevant subject, away from the core evidence you presented.

To counter these fallacies, the argument should have focused on substantiating claims with factual rebuttals and engaging directly with the evidence presented rather than diverting the discussion and attacking the character.

Fallacy Master had a good list of fallacies, but you are fighting a losing battle if you are arguing facts in the manner described. Try a different approach.

In my experience, people never change their beliefs by being punched in the head with facts. Most people believe what they believe because they want to believe what they currently believe. Facts are not important. Michael Shermer made this addition to Cognitive Dissonance Theory in his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things.” So, if your goal is to change another person’s belief, I think you must use a different approach.

Peter Boghossian suggested a strategy to change a person’s belief. To be successful, he said the person whose belief you want to change must reconsider how he arrived at the belief under discussion. If your goal is to change his mind, as distinct from pontificating (which is better done in front of a mirror), then you need to get him thinking about how he arrived at the belief.  

Boghossian’s book, “How to Have Impossible Conversations,” is an excellent manual on how to do this. In my experience, people never change their beliefs by being punched in the head with facts. Most people believe what they believe because they want to believe what they currently believe. Facts are not important. Michael Shermer made this addition to Cognitive Dissonance Theory in his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things.” So, if your goal is to change another person’s belief, I think you must use a different approach.

Peter Boghossian suggested a strategy to change a person’s belief. To be successful, he said the person whose belief you want to change must reconsider how he arrived at the belief under discussion. If your goal is to change his mind, as distinct from pontificating (which is better done in front of a mirror), then you need to get him thinking about how he arrived at the belief.  

Boghossian’s book, “How to Have Impossible Conversations,” is an excellent manual on how to do this. He suggests asking questions. For example (this is one of my favorites):

“I’ve come to a different conclusion and I’m having a hard time understanding where you’re coming from. I assume you must know some things about this subject that I don’t. Could you tell me more about where you’re coming from on that so I can understand better?”

The more ignorance you admit, the more readily your partner in the conversation will step in with an explanation to help you understand. And the more they attempt to explain, the more likely they are to realize the limits of their knowledge and epistemological errors made along the way.

If you ask someone a direct question and he obfuscates or refuses to answer, ask him to ask you the same question, and you answer it. Other Boghossian suggestions:

“That’s an interesting perspective. What leads you to conclude that?”

 Say, “I’m skeptical,” not “I disagree.”

 “On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being no confidence and 10 being absolute confidence, how confident are you that belief is true?”

“I’m not sure how I’d get to where you are, at a X. I want to see what I’m missing. Would you help walk me through it?”

“I am not trying to convince you of anything. I’m curious and would like to ask some questions to learn more.”

The idea is instead of people holding a belief because they think they should hold that belief, reverse it and claim to hold your belief and wish you could stop believing—if only the discussion partner could show you the error of your ways. The point is, you want to get them thinking about the process that led to the conclusion and not about the conclusion itself. 

All of this deals with the Fallacy of Subjectivism. Subjectivism is not only a way of adopting conclusions on subjective grounds, but also — and probably more often — a way of evading the grounds. Some people have perfected the skill of ignoring what they don’t want to see, and most of us indulge in this habit from time to time. Heuristics are hell. If I put the statement into a proposition, it takes the form: “I don’t want to accept p. Therefore p isn’t true.” That’s the fallacy of subjectivism.

 

I think the first part is an example of bulverism (with the suspected characteristic be that you're a blind devotee to liberalism).

The next part reminds me of affirming the consequent where a suitable unsupported explanation was given to satisfy their already drawn conclusion.

The third part of the argument tries to support the cherry picking accusation (because at least they present the supposedly ignored 'evidence'), but fails miserably in supporting the credibility of the sources (with the 'it wouldn't be online if it wasn't true'). That means that the cherry picking accusation isn't supported since no credible evidence were presented. The conversation I think should continue by requesting for the other party to provide evidence from credible sources (or even better save both yourselves your time and never attempt to argue again with each other).