In many debates in various fields of political science, it happens that historical events are called upon to make a case or support an argument. However, it also happens quite often that a debater, in such a scenario, selects only part of the facts so that the narrative she sought to adhere to would be corroborated by those facts. Is there a name for such a fallacy? What strategy is there to cope with such a fallacy? How to intellectually cope with such a debater?
PS: An example of such fallacy is common in the context of political conflicts when debaters try to clarify the source of the conflict and thus cling to historical facts, but then one or more of them reconstruct the history by describing a chain of events while omitting the causes of those events, and by so doing can even manifest negationism or arrive at mere propaganda.