“The only reason you disagree with me is because you don’t understand what I said!”
First thought - ‘Argument from Ignorance’ - but I don’t thnk thats right.
Best I can make out, it’s either ad hominem because it focuses on the reasoning skills of the arguer and not on the argument itself, or no fallacy because the arguer may genuinely not understand the argument being made.
It’s a mirror image of the personal incredulity fallacy.
I can’t find it on this list.
I’d say that’s not a fallacy; it’s merely an assertion which may or may not be correct.
I think it’s more of a fallacy. It is an assumption that with understanding comes agreement.
But it’s not an assertion that an argument is correct because you don’t understand. That would indeed make it a fallacy. The speaker is just dismissing you, but not supposing that your failure to understand is somehow supportive of his argument. It’s not the case that every wrong statement is a logical fallacy.
Sort of like “when you fully understand why you don’t believe in any other gods, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yours”?
nm
It is, however, the converse - it is an assertion that the opponent’s argument is incorrect because he does not understand. The proponent is not saying “I’m right because you don’t understand”, he is saying “You"re wrong because you don’t understand”, which is functionally and rhetorically a mere transformation of the former.
Although its fun to think there is somewhere in heaven a list of logical fallacies which one can consult to provide a riposte to every error of your opponent, hopefully in Latin or Greek, the truth is there is no such closed list. This particular one is potentially an amalgam of all sorts of things, such as the ad hominem mentioned above (it attacks the questioner’s intellectual powers and not the issue), circular reasoning ("If you properly understood my argument, you would agree with it. The fact that you don’t agree proves that you don’t understand it), the No True Scotsman (which is a variant of the circular argument) and perhaps others.
Of course, it often happens that people talk past each other in debates, and it may well be legitimate to say that the opponent does not understand. Economics, for example, is complex and counter-intuitive, and arguing with a taxi driver who proceeds from the basis that the national accounts are just a scaled up version of his domestic budget so that the same principles apply only with more zeroes on the end, can legitimately attract the comment “you don’t understand”. Such a comment is merely a comment however, not an argument. It assumes the opponent’s error in order to explain its source, but does not of itself demonstrate it.
For my part, I have never found it a particularly useful rhetorical device to try to use the identification of a logical fallacy as some sort of trump card against an opponent. It sidetracks the debate into a back eddy about the definition of the logical fallacy and its exceptions, and they all have exceptions. In my experience, people who argue for a living almost never try to point to classical fallacies on the part of their opponent as part of their argument.
If you’d understood what Kyrie was saying, you wouldn’t disagree with him. 
It’s almost like a weak non sequitur.
"You disagree" does not follow from “you misunderstand me”.
Eh, maybe that’s no so good either.
Yeah, it’s the “I’m an arrogant, condescending, patronizing jerk” fallacy.
Nine times out of ten, anything can be classified as the Straw Man fallacy.
More a tautology, I think. Or almost. If someone disagrees with me on an issue, either they don’t have all the facts on the issue, they aren’t evaluating or processing those facts correctly, or they have values that significantly diverge from mine.
Basically the other person just claimed you just stated something in jibberish. I don’t think it’s a fallacy so much as you have not been able to communicate your concept to a point where it can be considered. If a point can not be considered it can be dismissed. So I don’t see any fallacy in it, the burden is on you to make your point understandable.
Thinking more on this:
Because you have not made your point understandable does not mean your point is invalid. likewise because you lose the debate does not mean you were wrong.
I don’t know all the terms for such things, but I take it as a superiority complex based on knowing the rules of the game and not interested the truth, take to the extreme that the rules trump reality. In religion the term ‘legalism’ comes to mind.
I don’t think you are getting the point at all. It’s real simple: Just because you have made your point clearly and the other person understands it fully doesn’t mean the other person will now agree with you. This is why I think saying “The only reason you disagree with me is because you do not understand me” is a fallacy-by using the word “only” it excludes the very real possibility of understanding yet still disagreeing.
I see what you did there. 