1

Two people are talking. One makes a claim "These chips are stale". Other replies "C'mon, buddy, those chips are as stale as mummy wrappings from a Pharoah's tomb".

Aside from possible humor value, and assuming speaker 2 is attempting to win an argument over a point on which there was never a disagreement, is there a specific name for such a tactic?

Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 36,790
  • 3
  • 36
  • 80
Javaneer
  • 19
  • 2
  • 1
    How about something like, 'Hijacking the Assertion'? I can't find anything on Google, but you've identified an actual tactic. I've argued with people who do this, and (rightly or wrongly) I've concluded they did so because of insecurity or some other pressing need which made it more important for them to 'win' the argument than to successfully defend an initial claim or point of view. – Futilitarian Oct 20 '22 at 09:47
  • 1
    Thanks. Good to know this strikes a chord at least. The name makes sense. If there is a list of such things on Wikipedia and it does not include something like this it might be worth adding...and hoping it doesn't get stricken down afterward. :) – Javaneer Dec 17 '22 at 21:53
  • , the answer is lies somewhere between true stories and mythology. – Agent Smith Feb 17 '23 at 10:15

1 Answers1

1

There is no way to win or lose an argument when there was no disagreement.

But maybe there was an actual argument in your example between the lines. Maybe what the first person wanted to express was: "You owe me money for not providing me with chips of required quality." and the second person tries to deflect that argument and thus not accept that money is owed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion describes something roughly similar.

tkruse
  • 3,787
  • 7
  • 21
  • Thanks. That could be a possibility: they may have been deflecting by making the other person feel they were naively understating the obvious. – Javaneer Jun 12 '22 at 15:07