Debates, generalizing a group for both sides of the argument.

[edro]

I notice this a lot on the news, radio, forums, and general arguments.

The debater generalizes a group of people for one point and then generalizes them again for the counter point.
The debater is basically saying the people are trying to have their cake and eat it too, when in reality, they are probably 2 completely different types of people of the same group.

I'll give a few examples since it's hard to explain.

"These women who are screaming for equality are the same women who cry when you don't hold the door for them."
The social justice warrior woman screaming for equality probably isn't the same woman mad at you for not holding the door for them. The debater generalizes women for both sides of the debate.

"These people screaming for lower taxes are the same people complaining that their roads are in bad shape."

"The athletes that are crying about head injuries are the same athletes who didn't mind running full speed with their head down into their opponents."

These aren't great examples, but you should get the point.

What is this debate technique called? Is it a type of fallacy?

 

[TheGardener]

I don't know what the technical term is, but it is a convenient tool to marginalize the person you are debating by lumping him or her into a category. That way you can evade issues that are brought up. I'll be interested if someone comes up with a name.

Another method that I've seen on discussion boards is to cite and link numerous and obviously biased websites and articles, that support your views and marginalize the other guy by stating that his view is unsupported and not valid, because there are no supporting links. When there are links, then make sarcastic remarks that undermine the validity of the articles without discussing the real issues.

 

[Murloc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies have at it

 

[Nashemon]

Association Fallacy is the closest I can determine. Guilt by association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

 

[Nashemon]

I don't know what the technical term is, but it is a convenient tool to marginalize the person you are debating by lumping him or her into a category. That way you can evade issues that are brought up. I'll be interested if someone comes up with a name.

Another method that I've seen on discussion boards is to cite and link numerous and obviously biased websites and articles, that support your views and marginalize the other guy by stating that his view is unsupported and not valid, because there are no supporting links. When there are links, then make sarcastic remarks that undermine the validity of the articles without discussing the real issues.

Cherry Picking

 

[edro]

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the links.