Is there a name for a fallacy when someone used an argument against his opponent, but abandoned that argument as "unimportant", "invalid" or "irrelevant" when it was turned against him?

  • 1
    – Dan Bron
    Jun 18 '16 at 10:23
  • @Dan Bron, correct - but too broad.
    – user626528
    Jun 18 '16 at 11:36

I guess this fits under "Moving the goalpost" in some sense, even though the conversation topic was not changed, the proponent of that argument has moved the goalpost from countering that argument to countering another one without admitting that the previous goal has been achieved and was relevant.

Of course, a person may legitimately say "Yes, you're right that argument does not work but I think there is another one for my position: [...]." However, shadily acting like nothing was refuted when in fact you showed an argument to be invalid is definitely intellectually dishonest.

More generally, the fallacy of moving the goalpost is a special case of the informal fallacy referred to as "Special Pleading".

Relevant short wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy

Also potentially relevant: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.