Is there a word for this?

[diaglo]

short sighted? not seeing the forest for the trees?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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...

... but that's the best way!

-Hyp.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I call it My Wife's Defense.

 

[DrZombie]

I call it My Wife's Defense.

Guess who's sleeping on the couch tonight when his beloved wife logs on to EN-world?

 

[Dirigible]

Isn't it acceptable to disprove a theory by attacking and disproving each example one by one?

Yeah, but for most theories the number of examples is approaching infinity.

I think cheiromancer's on the right track, but 'nit-picking' isn't a very technical term... let's call it 'culexicarpere' instead. Pardon my grammar.

 

[howandwhy99]

I believe this is the fallacy of composition.

It goes hand in hand with the fallacy of division. Fc is incorrectly reasoning from the parts to the whole and Fd is incorrectly reasoning from the whole to the parts. If I'm right, it sounds like the other person was saying that because your example was refuted they could thereby refute the argument you were making.

I'm not sure if this is exactly correct tho. It depends on how they refuted your example and whether or not it was due to its specific details or the point in itself. It would need a clear definition.

Maybe you could list more info?