Is there a fallacy that states that someone is committing a fallacy by exiting a argument, mid-discussion because the other person is too immoral in their beliefs in the conversation. However, in reality they cannot substantiate any position and essentially "cop-out"? I had a heated talk with someone regarding abortion, and they played this card..and it was kind of obvious that they couldn't make a counter-argument.

 

~EE

I don't think so.

Is there a fallacy that states that someone is committing a fallacy by exiting a argument, mid-discussion because the other person is too immoral in their beliefs in the conversation. However, in reality they cannot substantiate any position and essentially "cop-out"? I had a heated talk with someone regarding abortion, and they played this card..and it was kind of obvious that they couldn't make a counter-argument.

 

~EE

Just a cop-out I guess.

A fallacy is a logical failure in a reasoning that renders an argument invalid. If you do not provide an argument you cannot, by definition, commit a fallacy. Like, committing DUI by not driving...

Is there a fallacy that states that someone is committing a fallacy by exiting a argument, mid-discussion because the other person is too immoral in their beliefs in the conversation. However, in reality they cannot substantiate any position and essentially "cop-out"? I had a heated talk with someone regarding abortion, and they played this card..and it was kind of obvious that they couldn't make a counter-argument.

 

~EE

 

So they basically refused to talk to you anymore about abortion because your position went against their morality? If they're arguing that any stance but their own is immoral, I'm sure they're using circular reasoning to get there. It's hard to justify never resorting to abortion without it.

Pigeon Chess?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Is it not just stonewalling?

Refusing to continue arguing isn't a type of argument. It's a decision. In this case, the reason given for making that decision might be a lie.

 

If they said that they were right because the other person was immoral, or that the reason they were no longer going to argue was because they won the argument because the other person was too immoral, the claim that the immorality of the other person is what bolsters their own argument would be fallacious.

 

But stopping an argument and lying about why aren't fallacies. They're just annoying. Not everything a person does that fails to be a good counter in an argument is a fallacy. Lies are just lies and refusing to engage is just refusing to engage.

What do you mean by too immoral in their beliefs?

What do you mean by too immoral in their beliefs?

Abortion is a topic that tends to grab at people's emotions because, depending on your perspective, the other side is either oppressing women or murdering babies.

 

Those are both quite bad things, so if you believe one of those things is happening but not the other, someone with the opposite viewpoint seems quite immoral in their views because they are pushing an agenda with horrible consequences for no valid reason.