Tags: Essay On Management StylesDepression Essay TeenEssay On Humanity In PoliticsEssays For Leadership ProgramsLegalizing Marijuana ThesisHow To Solve The Problem Of Global WarmingChristmas Problem Solving ActivitiesProblem Solving AnswerSimple EssayObservation Essay Ideas
It's really a superfallacy, in the same way that "Rule of Cool" is a supertrope; there are a number of fallacies which are all types of "Ignoratio Elenchi", among them all Appeals To Consequences, all Appeals To Emotion, all Strawmen and Red Herrings, Ad Baculum, Ad Nauseum, and all Ad Hominems.Senator Barrow advocates increased Social Security benefits for the poor.
For more information and examples of the fallacies within this category, please refer to LEO: Logical Fallacies: Irrelevant Connections.
The formal name literally means "ignorance of refutation" — this is not refuting the opposing position at all, but acting as though you did.
For more information and examples of the fallacies within this category, please refer to LEO: Logical Fallacies: Generalization.
An author's argument might be factually correct; however, the argument can still fail "because of the type of connections established between the parts of the argument.
These types of fallacies generally happen "when writers do not have strong support for their claims.
Distraction is also used if the opposition's view is strong and logical; then, writers have a tendency to attack the context instead of the argument." (Source: LEO: Logical Fallacies: Distraction From The Argument).
Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy.
This "reasoning" takes the following form: Quibbling occurs when a very small part of a person's argument, often the extremely precise meaning of a word, is focused on, rather than the argument as a whole.
Quibbling applies almost any time when there's more argument over what someone meant than over whether it's true, except when someone's completely incomprehensible.
Logic chopping occurs when often-useful yet time-consuming and often-misunderstood tools of logic (such as converting arguments into syllogisms) are either (a) required of from the speaker, making them waste time rather than make their points, (b) used to disguise the true meaning of a statement, or (c) to turn a simple issue into a complex and difficult philosophical argument.