Have you seen this debating tactic?

[Boojatta]

A debater gives two different descriptions of what may or may not be two different things. Then the debater insists either that the descriptions are of one and the same -- exactly the same -- thing or the debater insists that the descriptions are of two completely different things.

If the debater claims that they are the same and someone points out a possible difference, then the debater claims that it's not an actual difference, or the debater admits that it's an actual difference, but claims that it's an unimportant difference, or claims to be unable to understand.

If the debater claims that they are different and someone points out a possible similarity, then the debater claims that it's not an actual similarity, or the debater admits that it's an actual similarity, but claims that it's an unimportant similarity, or claims to be unable to understand.

[bryant69]

1. That seems like an effective technique

Often times people don't want to grapple with the ugly or unpleasant sides of their believes (myself included)- this would seem to be an effective way to get them to do that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wtmusic]

2. Sounds like variations on straw man nt

[islandmkl]

3. I thought I had seen that tactic, but....

it was a different tactic. While similar, it had nothing to do with the tactic you mention. Well, more than just similar, but those similarities are unimportant to this discussion. Or, maybe I didn't understand your premise. Either way, I don't believe I've ever seen that tactic before.

[PCIntern]

6. You're FUNNY!

:D

I GET IT...

[TrogL]

4. Logical Fallacy -No True Scotsman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[displacedtexan]

5. Speaking as a former collegiate debate coach, this sounds like a case of...

"moving the goal posts" and "making false comparisons."

This can easily be done during a debate by "manipulating the adjectives"
used to describe an ever-changing thesis statement.

Your last paragraph points to what is called "minimization of argument development,"
which is designed to make an opponent believe s/he's won the point; when, in fact, you've
actually kept him/her from advancing the argument and scoring decisively.

A more specific example (anecdote) would help me understand your question better.

[Boojatta]

7. Kick