It is very hard to tell, but on this last statement I think you are making a judgement call here (IMHO risky but possible), perhaps out of frustration based on your own personal experience, and you could be correct.
If you are correct, I would say that you win the debate by reason of intentional deception of your ‘opponent’. They have knowingly put forth a lie (as you stated they understand it fully), and destroyed their creditability in the process.
But it is very hard to determine their intention so very hard to determine if this can apply.
The Courtier’s Reply comes close. It has the element of “you have not studied [x field] for long enough, or else you would truly understand the mysterious truths contained within”.
An assumption/assertion which may or may not be correct.
If you argue: 1) All dogs are mammals, 2) All mammals give birth to live young…Therefore…dogs give birth to live young.
AND THEN
I argue that my dog saw a fish that didn’t give birth to live young…and you reply with the statement that I didn’t understand the argument, then (hang with me here)
Your statement is not a fallacy; whether it is correct or incorrect in its assumption. The assumption stated must rise or fall on its own logic (which in this case is obviously correct) but the overall argument or restatement that “you just don’t understand my argument” is not logically invalid.
In my experience the important one is number three.
If the discussion is about facts that are easily discernible - annual production of potash in Saskatchewan - there is no real discussion. I say it’s one megaunit and you say its two megaunits. Quick Google and problem solved. Turns out its one and a half megauntis.
It gets thorny when you discuss the effect on the environment versus the effect on the economy for instance. Here values (I’m using values as synonymous with beliefs) come into play.
I am pretty left-wing and I will always view information from that perspective.
If you show me facts proving that corporate tax-cuts benefit everyone I will show you facts proving that they only benefit the upper echelon and in fact hurt the workers.
From there we will devolve into arguments about the reputability of the sources / studies / observations etc. The discussion may be interesting but in the end it is unlikely to move either of us from our position because of our respective values.
No one has all the facts; so matter how many facts are thrown around no one will likely move anywhere because few people will abandon their core.
Beliefs and value-systems are the spiritual (non-physical) spine of any person and a threat to that is a threat as real as a fist. And that threat recruits ego to its rescue.
From there it becomes, “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
It’s not a fallacy in itself, but it stems from the mind projection fallacy. Assuming one’s own views and thoughts are absolute often comes with the consequence of assuming that anyone who is of a rational/understanding mind must come to the same conclusion/agree, or otherwise they simply don’t understand or aren’t being rational.
Possibly, the other party might in fact not understand the original argument. If this is claimed (“you disagree only because you don’t understand”) then that is, itself a new argument that would need to be rebutted (if it were to be taken seriously at all).
Otherwise, it’s just an ad hominem argument, since it attacks the other arguer and does not actually, y’know, address the original argument whatever that was.
If the other arguer is a feminem then it’s an ad feminem argument. (I actually wrote this on a test in Logic class once – the teacher asked us to identify various fallacies, and one of them was a scenario in which one arguer made a personal attack against the other arguer, who was identified with feminine pronouns.)