I didn't need it when i was a kid

Person A claims kids need x
Person b says they didn't need it when they were a kid so they don't need it.

I think this is appeal to tradition of argue from ignorance, but I'm not too sure.

This could also be a form of the historian's fallacy. However, I think the best match is simply the weak analogy.

I think it is mostly a hasty generalization fallacy. The argument states that because I as a kid (one individual) didn't need X, therefore kids (in general) don't need X.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization

excuse my englisch and/or assumptions


if person A makes a generalization,
person B can react to the claim including the generelization. stating that kids dont "need" x

if you take it out of kontext, and look at person B's claim seperetly it could state, : kids "might not" need X

important is that person A isnt stating, witch kids need X, so calling person B on its generelization doesnt bring you to the primary fallacy.

in fact it seems that person B atempts to call person A on its fallacy (something with unprovided information i guess)

without B's information A would generalize.

So, essentially the argument is a rejection of an idea solely based on the age of the claimant?

Chronological Snobbery.

Sounds like an anecdotal fallacy to me