Name of the argument fallacy when someone only attempts to refute one of your points?

Question

I've never found out the name of this fallacy, or even if there is a name for it, but it seems to me it's the fallacy that occurs by far the most often. You are having a debate with someone and then you make 6 crucial points...then the other person responds by picking only point #5 and trying to refute it.

More often than not their attempt to refute the single point they singled out was invalid anyway, but as it appears as if they "hit the ball back" to you to continue the rally, they actually didn't since they ignored almost all the points made. But still since it appears that way, at least to them, it comes back to you to somehow respond.

So to be clear it looks like this:

Person A's argument:

1. argument point...

2. argument point...

3. argument point...

4. argument point...

5. argument point...

6. argument point...

And then person B responds with:

5. argument point...

That's not true because....etc

Then it's back to person A who has to do what, repeat all his points again??

In my experience it's almost always the points they ignore that are most damaging to their whole argument, and the single point they cherry picked out to refute is the weakest and more simple to refute.

Add to that the points aren't normally numbered like they are here, that's just for clarity in this example. So it's particularly difficult to respond to.

It just gives them this opportunity to say in some form or another "no, you're wrong" in response to what you said. Which is powerful in itself but seems like a fallacy to me considering the way it's achieved.

EDIT: Since many people seem to misunderstand what I mean by argument point I'll try to explain a bit more. Imagine you're reviewing a product or service and you have to make a list of pros and cons or advantage and disadvantages. So you could claim a product is not great due to the cons.

e.g.

Cons

1. very expensive
2. flimsy
3. not waterproof
4. takes too long to recharge
5. customer support rude

So my fallacy would be that someone would claim this product is in fact good and would argue against these five disadvantages by stating "no you're wrong, it's not a bad product because it actually doesn't take that long to recharge". So regardless of whether what he said is true or not, he simply has ignored all the other cons that add up to a bad product. So even if true it's still a bad product based on the other cons.

Answer 1

You haven't described this issue clearly.

In general, if A makes ten arguments for a position and B refute one of the arguments there are multiple reasons why B might do that. B might think that if he refutes one argument your position is refuted, which would be wrong. B might think he wants to take your arguments out one at a time so he starts with one argument with the aim of getting agreement that it's wrong before he moves on to the others. Or he might just want to refute that particular argument without having any intention to go on to any further arguments.

Another problem is that looking for the name of a fallacy to use in an argument is a bad idea in many cases. A name just means you've put a label on something not that you understand it.

Answer 2

For me this looks like a Argument from fallacy (or called "fallacy fallacy"):

It has the general argument form: If P, then Q. P is a fallacious argument. Therefore, Q is false.

Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.

That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent. But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy.

Here's a similar example:

Tom: I speak English. Therefore, I am English.

Ben: Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. By assuming that speaking English and being English always go together, you have just committed the package-deal fallacy. You are incorrect. Therefore, you are not English.

The fact that Tom's argument was fallacious is not, in itself, a proof that his conclusion is false.

Btw, according to principle of sufficient reason, ideally there's one and only one reason (argument) to explain a concluding effect. You may need to structure all your arguments into a united one as a classical syllogistic form like above example from the reference...

Answer 3

The specifics rely on a concrete example of that, but there's a good chance that it's not a fallacy at all.

Like ideally your arguments and premises would lead up to a conclusion so it would be:

(A,B,C,D,E) -> Conclusion

or idk:

(A,B) -> C, (C,D) -> E and (E,F) -> Conclusion

or something like that. So pointing out that any of these premises or (pre-)conclusions is false or invalid would have a destructive effect on the soundness or respectively the validity of your entire argument.

That does not mean that you're conclusion must be false, but it means that your implication is false and that indeed puts the ball is back in your field to either fix that problem or to give up on this claim.

But it seems that you think about something more along the lines of:

1. (A,B) -> C
2. (D,E) -> C
3. (F,G) -> C

...

So each of the arguments is it's own implication independent of the others. So showing that one of them is not sound or even invalid only works for that one argument and as said not in and of itself debunks the conclusion. Yet it still puts the ball back in your field to either fix or give up that specific argument, so at least in that regard it's still not a fallacy.

Also depending on the medium of communication it's usually not ideal to produce multiple arguments at the same time. Like if it's a write-up of all counter arguments then it might be ok, but in a discussion that's more akin to attempting a DOS attack ("denial of service" due to a flooding with requests) on the opponent, so rhetoric rather than substance.

And then you approach, not so much logical, but a practical problem. Like if someone comes at you with a list of 10 arguments and each of them crumbles away under scrutiny without resistances or attempts to back it up, then you're kinda approaching the point where you ask yourself whether that's a good use of your lifetime, because the other end seems to be dead set on a conclusion and seems to take up any argument in it's defense rather than having found the conclusion as a necessary result of a set of premises. So no matter how many arguments you're taking down, the other end will always come up with another one and no a plurality of arguments in favor of something means very little in it's defense. So they're acting in bad faith and leaving the scene unless they are willing to defend their claims is unfortunately often the best option you've got.

That in itself is acting fallacious, because "the boy who cried wolf", may now have actually seen a wolf and can be employed by bad faith actors as a means to shut down an argument without engaging with the meat of it, but it could also be a useful heuristic when engaging with bad faith actors. So it's a double edged sword that is logically problematic. So you kinda rely on an educated audience to distinguish one from the other. Which is again not a logical problem but a practical one.

So to mitigate that you could just focus on your strongest argument instead.

If they then again pick a part of it that is not relevant for the argument or which side tracks ignoring the argument, then it's idk a strawman fallacy or something like that, where you don't fight the argument, but a mock version of it. Or again they could have a real point if your argument actually relies on that point. Then it would be again up to you to confirm that the argument is debunked, how it could be saved or how the integral part of it is still untouched and valid.

So it pretty much depends on an actual example of it.

Answer 4

There is one person trying to prove that a statement is correct, and one person trying to prove that you have no evidence.

You have five arguments that purport to prove your statement. The other person shows that one of your arguments is not just unproven but wrong. So the situation is changed: Instead of five statements that may or may not be correct or wrong, you have four that may or may not be correct or wrong, and one that is most definitely wrong.

That very much weakens your position. Not only has the other person shown one of your arguments to be wrong. They have also shown that you are careless in making arguments, therefore your arguments 1 to 4 need much more scrutiny before they can be accepted, and you should provide much more evidence that your arguments 1 to 4 are correct.

It's a fallacy to thing that disproving your statement is the only result that would count. Instead, the other person has created very reasonable doubt in your arguments. It's like being in court and making five statements. If the defense proves that one statement was a lie, then your reliability as a witness is very much in doubt.