In a debate I had with friends, I noticed one tactic he would use occasionally would be to make a statement like:
Julian Assange broke the law, and we all lost
I think both parts of this statement are valid on their own (Julian Assange broke laws, and I believe the world will be at a loss with a Trump presidency) however together it seems to imply causality. It sounds like a post hoc fallacy however he never explicitly states the causality. I challenged his statement claiming it as a post hoc fallacy and he argued that it is not because he never explicitly stated that causality was for certain, and likewise I cannot prove that causality DOES NOT exist.
This left me confused, almost like he is arguing against his own point to make it appear like a benign meaningless statement when clearly it is meant to sway opinions to his side.
Is this a form of a post hoc fallacy, and if so, must causality be proven to NOT exist for it to be challenged?