What's that latin phrase where people present an argument as though it were a gotcha

[J0y]

Jordan Petersen does this with his arguments. Like in response to a statement that men are dominant in society he lists off ''men are more likely to be depressed, men are more likely to commit suicide, men are more likely to drop out of school'' and he presents these as a gotcha, so no, men aren't more dominant in society.

But yet, men still get paid more even though they drop out of school more often, and women aren't responsible for men committing suicide.

But he does this with all of his arguments, presents them like they were Night Follows Day.

Does anybody know the latin phrase I mean? I was chatting to my friend about JP yesterday and we both agree that he does this and it's so annoying.

QED.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

A fait accompli

non sequitur (noun) · non sequiturs (plural noun) · nonsequitur (noun) · nonsequiturs (plural noun)
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement:

Is that what you mean?

When I read "a gotcha" as in a done deal, I thought fait accompli.
But QED above fits the bill better.

What you're describing here is the Non-sequitur Fallacy which means "it does not follow".

In this case, "men cannot be dominant in society because they're more likely to commit suicide" really doesn't follow.

This is a highly common error in reasoning.

I'm guessing you did neither Latin or French GCSE 😀

In your example, it’s not so much that he’s arguing that ‘men aren’t more dominant’, it’s to show how the statement ‘men are dominant in society’ is so vague that it’s of no use to anyone 🤷‍♀️He’s very evidence and detail-oriented, and has had so much used against him, that he won’t deal with generalities at all - because people trying to ruin him will use very short clips completely out of context, to make it seem like he said things he didn’t say. He has to be precise.

He's an idiot. Stop giving him headspace.

Possibly he's veering into reductio ad absurdum (Latin for 'reduction to absurdity'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum, as well as simply (as pp says) performing an argument from fallacy (a fallacist's fallacy?) on occasions.

He's not always wrong though, in fairness.

I can’t stand him. He sickens me.

Sickens you? That's a bit strong. Why?

He speaks as though his opinion is word. I can't imagine what it must be like living with him. Why is he also so depressed about everything?

Is French.

Forget Latin. There's a perfectly good English term "Strawman".

Do you mean that he says "Q.E.D" in a triumphant tone at the end of his argument?

Ipso facto?

Or does he say the unabbreviated version : "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), indicating that he has just proved a point to his own satisfaction?

Coz he is a twat. HTH

Thank you 3verybody, definitely not fait accomplit no

It might be this.
But if you can have a non sequitur, can you have a si sequitur!!?

QED

Well, it helped me see there are posters here with all the emotional maturity of a 10 year old, yes. Thanks! 😁

I am a feminist. It is true that men do commit suicide at a higher rate than women. Perhaps life is more stressful for them, or they find it harder to cope than women.
Perhaps it might be better for them if they could budge up a bit and let women hold the reins of power half the time. Take up some of the strain, lessen the expectations on them.
But perhaps they don't fancy the pay cut, or the drop in status, or they just like being in charge. In that case, tough.
If they want to hang on to the big bucks and the power, they have to recognise the downside too.

Romani eunt domus

I think what you're interpreting as a gotcha moment is an experienced debater landing their point which you are free to refute. He definitely did have a gotcha moment with CN but to be fair, she was woeful and he said afterwards that he regretted it.