I'm trying to think of the name of this fallacy, and it's driving me crazy. The typical situation is this: I make a claim, and list several examples supporting this claim. Someone then discredits one of the examples, focuses on that example, and insinuates that the entire argument is invalid based on this.
Example follows. I do not want this to turn into a political conversation, so please do not focus on the example topic in your response
Conclusion - Trump's victory had emboldened racists and bigots to be more open with their hate.
Evidence - multiple news articles showing examples of his supporters acting in hateful ways this week.
Counter point - one of the articles was later shown to be a hoax.
Counter conclusion - These articles can't be trusted, so your claim is false.
Your input would be greatly appreciated.
I apologize to mods if they see this was posted elsewhere. I was directed to this page, instead. Please feel free to cleanup The post on the English page.