The structure is as follow:
- Person A states argument X.
- Person B says that things are not so simple to discredit argument X. A special case is when B argues that: "this-is-not-about-D", pretending that person A is using a false dilemma D.
Of course, B's argument could be completely legit or right, but not always:
- (A) Sometimes B doesn't properly explain why X is overly simplistic, insufficient or a false dilema.
- (B) Sometimes B presents a falsely related fact Y to confuse person A and then state X is too simplistic because he didn't consider things like Y.
Case B can be confused with two well-known fallacies, but I don't thing it qualifies as such:
- The introduction of Y is not a straw man fallacy because person B doesn't argue against Y as a way to argue against X, because person B doesn't argue against Y at all.
- Y is more like a distraction, but I don't see it as a red herring either because the distraction Y is not used to avoid arguing against X, rather, is to confuse person A and then argue against X without justification because person A is too confused to argue back.
Has this fallacy a name?