As far as I’m concerned, accusations of nitpicking constitute throwing in the towel. Nitpicking is one of those accusations of convenience, like unfairness or oversimplification, that is an offense only when it is used by someone else. Frankly, it is an exercise in nitpicking to call nitpicking — it is like an elitist calling a redneck a bigot. It is an admission that the opponent’s argument holds because it is a self-condemning claim that the opponent’s argument would fail were it not for some picayune technicality. Condemnation by the subjunctive.
The N-word is flung around all too casually. It seems to cover everything from a simple typo to such basic conceptual necessities as definitions. “You mean you hold that A is different from B? Why, that’s just nitpicking. They’re both letters!” And it is not uncommon that both sides will load the N-canon and fire. One picks apart the other’s grammar while the the second picks apart the first’s scheme of classification.
Is it not better to concede the point when the point is right, and then emphasize that there is something more important to consider than the point made than it is to dismiss the point summarily as something somehow false when in fact it is true?
I think the answer to that depends on why you’re debating in the first place. It’s been my experience that some people debate to understand, some to win, and some to impress.
Only the first group would answer your question with a resounding yes, and in the heat of debate, even they might find themselves slipping into one of the other camps. Egos are extremely efficient at blurring the line between important clarification and cheap, distracting gambit.
While I agree totally with the last part, I disagree nearly as strongly with the first. Rather, I see nitpicking in general as a type of red herring fallacy; even if the nit being picked is true/correct (which should be conceded immediately and graciously), it often does nothing more than serve as a distraction from the main argument.
Of course, that’s not always the case – in some instances, the nits being picked do have ramifications on the broader point. Speaking reflexively, it is akin to arguing an analogy – showing where an analogy is unsuitable requires a sense of relevance. Analogical situations may differ in both relevant and irrelevant ways; IMHO, most nitpicking is of the latter type and has little bearing on the thrust of an argument.
Which I believe was the case with the Bricker example. He made a clearly factual statement that evidence against the personnel involved could not be taken from the photos only. And against evasive responses, he repeated himself. Suddenly, the charges of nitpicking began, seeming to me to indicate the aforementioned throwing in of the towel — i.e., since Bricker has made a valid point, I will concede it by attempting to make his point pointless, or a red herring. And in fact, it isn’t a red herring at all. After all, if you were defending yourself in a court of law against a doctored photograph, you might not appreciate the prosecution telling the jury that you’re nitpicking by saying that the photo proves nothing about what you did.
Since as far as you are concerned, accusations of nitpicking constitute throwing in the towel, I guess we can end this debate right here. Better luck next time.