Name of argumentation in a discussion

Question

Some weeks ago I was discussing with a friend. I criticized Trump about something and then my friend replied "OK, but what about Obama?". This question was aimed at removing attention from Trump and discuss about something else, which, albeit relevant, was not the main topic of the discussion. Moreover, my friend was assuming that I prefer Obama to Trump, which is not necessarily true (I might dislike them both). On top of that, he is not really saying that what Trump did was correct; he just said that Obama did it too.
What I would like to know is: what is the name of this argument and how do people usually handle it? This kind of argumentation is used a lot by politicians, e.g. when criticized about something, they reply saying that the politicians from other parties did similar things (just like my friend did).
This question might not be suitable for this community, so I will apology in advance if that's the case and I will erase the question, but I didn't know where else to post it.

niels nielsen · Answer

This tu quoque fallacy is so common in political debates that it has a special name: the "whattabout" or "whattaboutism". Plentiful textbook examples of the whattabout can be found in the interactions between the press and the trumpists Huckabee, Spicer, Conway and McEnany.

Answered by niels nielsen on January 4, 2022

Name of argumentation in a discussion

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Related Questions

On which frames is the modal system KW valid?

Name of argumentation in a discussion

Further reading on inquiry into central human need

How were formal systems and notion syntactic consequence (proof) developed?

What does Foucault mean by “boomerang”?

How could I possibly apply rule-utilitarianism in real life?

Is Nietzsche’s goal — for the “overman” and “higher type” — just ‘forgetfulness’?

What is meant by “assume P”?

Does this reformulation of the the analytic / synthetic distinction overcome Quine’s objections?

Is the Münchhausen trilemma really a trilemma?

Arguments for Denying Prisoners the Right to Vote

Aren’t we most likely subject to artificial selection?

Is mathematics truth? As in the sense of that which is manifest or possible in reality?

How can a stream of thoughts and perceptions have freewill?

Confusion about how the many worlds interpretation denies the measurement?

What does Nietzsche mean by the words ‘counterfeiting the world by means of numbers?’

how to prove ‘¬∃xP(x)→(P(a)→Q(a))’ from no premises? fitch

In what contexts or disciplines does “One may assume X” imply “One may ignore the possibility of any statement contrary to X being true”?

Is the truth table method for valuating 0th order sentences not a proof system in its own right?

What is the relationship between the primitive notion and a priori?

Ask a Question