This is something I’ve seen quite often in debates here and elsewhere though I can’t find any specific examples at this moment.
May as well Godwinise my own thread with a made-up example.
“The Nazi’s were really bad guys, they invaded other countries, they tried to exterminate other people, they got rid of human rights wherever they dominated, they liked to stamp on kittens and small puppies…”
“Actually, there’s no evidence that they ever had an individual or state policy regarding stamping on kittens and small puppies”
“Well its not my fault if you love Nazi’s, shouldn’t you be off Seig Heiling somewhere, Mister Ubermensch!”
Exaggerating for effect but you get the idea.
Basically because someone, rightly or wrongly, doesn’t like an individual or group then they feel that basically every possible bad thing imaginable can and should be thrown at them and they get bent out of shape if questioned re the factuallity behind it.
EDIT:If you mean why people launch a personal attack, I <THINK> it is because they assume you’ve got a trick up your sleeve or a gotcha! and are trying to head that off, I’ve seen some tortured ones here for stuff like abortion.
I just mean by the second quote that the person is pointing out that something said in the original quote is factually incorrect ie: for all the undoubted bad things the Nazi’s did they didn’t go around stamping on kittens. This doesn’t make them good people or what they did do any less evil, just that they aren’t guilty of that particular sin.
And when this is pointed out the original poster gets upset about it because they’re apparently of the opinion that if a person/group is evil in one respect then its perfectly OK to say they’re evil in all respects and guilty of everything you can think of and when you point out that some of the stuff alleged isn’t actually true then you must be defending them, which is not the case.
Let me generalize to see if I can understand what you’re really talking about.
Person A makes a claim (e.g. “The Nazis were bad”) and provides a list of evidence for that claim. However, along with the good or relevant evidence, at least one of the supporting “facts” that Person A presents is either false, or unsubstantiated, or doesn’t really support the main claim.
Person B then points this out. Upon which Person A gets upset and calls Person B a Nazi-lover.
I see three things that Person A is doing wrong:
First, he is overstating his case. He should have just listed the “good,” supportable evidence in favor of his claim and left out the dubious evidence.
Second, he is reacting to the challenge to his bad evidence as if it were a denial of his whole major claim that it was intended to support. Pointing out that an argument is invalid is not the same as claiming that the conclusion to that invalid argument is false. To mistake these is a fallacy, though I’m not sure what it would be called.
Third, Person A is unfairly impugning Person B’s motives for refuting Person A’s evidence or for pointing out the flaw in Person A’s arguments. This is also a fallacy, though again I’m not sure what it would be called.