Is there a word for this?

[Dirigible]

A debating or logical disourse term which means attacking the details of an example an opponent gives, thus seeming to refute it without actually doing so?

 

[fafhrd]

Straw man fallacy? Attacking a weakened form of one's argument while presenting it as the more robust version.

Maybe sophistry? A seemingly reasonable argument that is in fact false.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Yeah, I'm gonna go with Straw Man.

 

[Dirigible]

Doesn't straw man mean setting up a false, fragile interpretation of the opponent's position and then knocking it down?

Actually, I can see how that might fit with what I was asking. Mm, possibly, but it doesn't sound qute right.

 

[LeapingShark]

Straw man is close, but I can see how it's not quite a perfect fit, since it seems alot like "deliberate misinterpretation".

The Red Herring fallacy is very close too.

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

"You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?"

Not quite the same, since this is more about "getting off-track", but it serves the same purpose. Attacking the details of an arguement often introduces irrelevant information, which likely diverts attention away from the arguement, and thus you may seem to be refuting the arguement without actually doing so.

*

Also, one might also claim that there is no fallacy here; maybe "attacking the details of an example" actually IS a proper way of refuting the arguement. Isn't it acceptable to disprove a theory by attacking and disproving each example one by one?

 

[Angcuru]

Back in high school when was in debate club, we just called it Democratizing. But I think the Straw Man one is pretty close, in terms of technicality.

 

[sellars]

Doesn't straw man mean setting up a false, fragile interpretation of the opponent's position and then knocking it down?

Actually, I can see how that might fit with what I was asking. Mm, possibly, but it doesn't sound qute right.

I would choose the term strawman too. on the basis of the same line of reasoning

 

[Cheiromancer]

I don't think that is what Dirigible is talking about. If I understand correctly, he's talking about someone attacking the irrelevant details of an argument, thereby giving the impression that the argument itself has been refuted. But in actuality the details could be easily corrected.

The term for that would be "nit-picking."

 

[msd]

I don't think that is what Dirigible is talking about. If I understand correctly, he's talking about someone attacking the irrelevant details of an argument, thereby giving the impression that the argument itself has been refuted. But in actuality the details could be easily corrected.

The term for that would be "nit-picking."

We call that "ignoring the steak for the peas..."

 

[Felix]

Pedantry,
Pedantic, (adj)
Pedant,

I think these might be closer to what you're looking for.