A neglected form of dishonest argument

Hell hath no fury like someone accused of dishonest argument - when they actually are arguing dishonestly!

The self-righteous indignation at what seems a false accusation derives from the fact they are not consciously trying to deceive (i.e. to "lie") - the conscience is clear on that point!

But this depends on the assumption that intentional lying is the only dishonest form of argument. 

However; although deliberate deception is very common indeed, and indeed compulsory in managerial positions of bureaucracies - it is not the only form of dishonest argument.

One dishonesty in argument that I have encountered many times - especially over the past three decades - is people who will not address the point at issue, but persist in changing the subject to something else. 

Instead of winning an argument against what I am saying, the others refuse to engage in my argument and instead discuss... something else. 

There may be many reasons for this - the others may not understand my argument, they may regard it as trivial; but the dishonesty is that 

1. they will not engage with it, and 

2. they dishonestly refuse to admit that they are not-engaging. 

The dishonesty is in asserting that they are arguing about the same thing as me, when they are not doing so!

  

This is extremely common. 

I encounter it a lot online, I used to encounter it frequently in my professional life. 

I have encountered it whenever my arguments became public and got into the professional literature and mainstream media...

The Big Problem then, was that the journalists refused to describe, engage-in or discuss what it was that I was actually saying; and instead used it as a hook upon-which to hang a pre-defined agenda that they did wanted to promote. 

This relates to a further dishonesty of argument; which is:

The pretence that one is interested in discovering truth by argument; when one is actually wanting to show that the other person is wrong!

For instance; the other party may want to prove me wrong for many reasons, and some of these reasons may be good! - but the point at issue here is that they are arguing dishonestly. 

They are not trying to refute my argument, because that would require engagement wit hwhat I actually have said. 

Indeed, often they don't even know what I am actually saying!

They are arguing instead to demonstrate my wrongness - and that, therefore, I can and should be ignored. 

There is a world of difference; and to pretend one while doing the other - just is dishonest.