Fhyujk

Is it a fallacy if someone claims they need an explanation for every word of your argument to the point where they don't understand common terms?

For example, suppose someone said, "If a dog bites people, then it's a vicious dog." Then someone counters, "What do you mean by 'bites'? Define 'biting people'. Define 'dog'."

Generally speaking, in philosophical discussions, it is often required to provide definitions for words that seem obvious otherwise, let me give you an example:

When you say : The King of France is bold . Russell may ask you, what do you mean by The? (I will not talk about the theory of descriptions here).

And Russell's question here would be legitimate, and it is significant to analytical philosophy, in what sense do you claim that the king of France such and such...?! (and this word in Russell's terms means more than it seems to mean)

So, I would assume that an analytical philosopher is NOT committing a fallacy here, since I know that even the slightest of our common uses of language can still present some ambiguities at a deeper analytical level.

So, back to your example:

What do you mean by bite?

I do not know of a particular example of a discussion where 'bite' would pose any definitional issues, but consider this dialogue:

• A: Your dog bites


• B: What do you mean by bites?


• A: I mean bite, you know what I mean.

In this situation, B must provide examples as to what definitional level he is talking about. And may reply:

B: I mean, in what sense my dog bites? in the aggressive sense of biting people to hurt them? or in the sense of playful biting?

As you can see here, there is still an ambiguity in the statement. But there are caveats, these factors can resolve the ambiguities, and add in implied meanings, even if A does not provide further details.

• The tone and state in which A talks (unless they are texting)


• B already knowing his dog is aggressive.

So ambiguities only arise either when B knows his dog is not aggressive (so he suspects that 'bites' means playful biting), and when they are texting (so B cannot see how A feels about it).

In case all ambiguities are resolved, but B is still asking questions about defining the word 'bite' , then you may refer to these fallacies:

• 
  Sealioning Asking questions and demands for endless answers.


• It might be a Red Herring , if B drags the discussion towards 'bite' instead of talking about his dog's behavior.

As well as fallacies suggested in the comments above.

But remember, it might not be a fallacy if there are still ambiguities that need to be resolved, so that the parties know exactly what they are talking about.

Edit

A sentence is anything that is said, for example : Your dog bites people.

But in philosophical discussions, philosophers (especially analytical philosophers and logicians) deal with propositions.

You dog bites and Your dog bites are one sentence, that may refer to 2 (or more) propositions. Propositions are what you mean by a sentence, not what is articulated or expressed, but also what is implied.

Many sentences can refer to one proposition, like I love Paris, J'aime Paris and 我喜欢巴黎...etc.

And many propositions may be implied by one sentence, I love you is one sentence, that can imply many meanings (propositions) : Romantic love, parental love...etc.

Edit 2

As Frank's answer pointed out, sealioning is considered a pseudo-fallacy by Bo Bennett.

I up voted SmootQ's answer, but I want to elaborate on it a bit.

As SmootQ suggested, the answer depends largely on the person making the argument and his or her intent.

If the person asking for definitions is earnest, then there's no foul play involved.

If the person is playing games with you, then there is foul play involved, though it doesn't really qualify as a fallacy.

On another note, this can be a two-way game. If a person(s) has a habit of playing this game with me, I sometimes do the same thing in return. If they complain about me playing games, I just point out their scurrilous arguments.

Keep in mind that philosophers aren't the only ones who place great emphasis on the meaning of words. There are some very sophisticated propagandists - some of whom are knowledgeable about philosophy - who are very adept at manipulating even the simplest words.

As @SmootQ notes some names for such argumentation may be "sealioning" and "red herring".

Regarding sealioning, Bo Bennett describes this not as a logical fallacy, but rather as a pseudo-logical fallacy:

A subtle form of trolling involving “bad-faith” questions. You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. This is not a fallacy; it is more of a form of deception. As always, be careful in assuming you know the other person’s intent. On the surface, “sealioning” looks a lot like legitimate and honest Socratic inquiry.

This would not meet all three of Bennett's characterizations of a logical fallacy although some might consider it a logical fallacy:

1. 
   It must be an error in reasoning, not a factual error.


2. 
   It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or the interpretation of the argument.


3. 
   It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

However, Bennett considers a red herring to be a legitimate logical fallacy:

Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Bennett also cautions his readers against raising fallacy issues against their opponents' arguments:

I caution you against correcting fallacies that your opponent might raise. As you will see in this book, fallacies go by many different names, and there are varying definitions for the fallacies. Except for a handful of fallacies that have been around since the time of Aristotle, most fallacies are under a continual redefining process that might change the name of the fallacy or the meaning of the fallacy. The bottom line is to focus on exactly what error in reasoning you are being accused of, and defend your reasoning—not a definition or name.

Knowing about fallacies is mainly a form of self-defense, not a form of offense in an argumentation. If you point out a fallacy to your opponents, "what you certainly should be prepared for, is your opponents pointing out your fallacies, and if you know about fallacies, you will be ready to defend yourself."

Bo Bennett "Being a Smart-Ass" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/207/Being-a-Smart-Ass

Bo Bennett "Pseudo-Logical Fallacies" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/6/Pseudo-Logical-Fallacies

Bo Bennett "Red Herring" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring