On the spot fallacy

{{sources needed}}{{lognav}}
{{cquote|By implication [statists] assume the argument for or against their position is closed and that the only things about which there need be discussion are the proposals offered as alternatives to coercion. No other method has been tried, they argue, and so those who propose other ways must satisfactorily [[Moving the goalposts|(to their satisfaction, that is)]] prove that those other ways ‘will work’. It is interesting to note here that the statists who raise this point will often insist that an [anarchist] be able to prove beyond question that in a free society any and all possible problems will be settled perfectly to everyone’s complete satisfaction. Furthermore, these problems must be able to be settled before they ever arise — that is, we must have a patent[ly] perfect answer for ‘solving’ every imaginable hypothetical thrown at us. If we are unable to do so — to their complete satisfaction — then our approach toward dealing with social problems is discarded out of hand as ‘useless’, ‘idealistic’, [and] ‘unworkable’. Ask their system to withstand the same rigid interrogation and [[Double standard|they will cry that we are being unreasonable]].|||Michael E. Coughlin<ref>[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michael-e-coughlin-objections-to-anarchism#toc13 “Objections to Anarchism”]</ref>}}

An '''on the spot fallacy''' ('''OTS''') is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when a [[debate]]r is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic. The fallacy asserts that one must be an expert on a topic in order to discuss ''anything'' related to it (and, at that, an expert with ''flawless'' [[memory]]).

The fallacy often occurs during a [[Gish gallop]] — because people are unable to respond to so many arguments at once.

The fallacy is a [[conditional fallacy]], because people ''are'' expected to provide evidence for their position. This fallacy occurs when people ask for evidence that's unreasonably in-depth and do not allow the responder sufficient time or access to resources to answer the question adequately.

==Alternative names==
*drag-you-into-the-weeds fallacy (alternatively "drag-you-into-the-weeds-and-strangle-you" fallacy)
*minutiae trap

==Explanation==
OTS is a mixture of [[credentialism]] and [[appeal to authority]] (you're wrong because you don't know absolutely everything about an issue), shifting the [[burden of proof]] (''you'' have to prove that something is ''absolutely true'', while the opposite side has no burden to disprove what evidence you present) and [[moving the goalposts]] (by demanding increasingly overspecific replies to a question that's already been answered, until the replier fails to be more specific, at which point the original question is considered unanswered or incorrectly answered).

The issue isn't just that it's ''practically'' (though perhaps ultimately not ''technically'') ''impossible'' to meet the excruciatingly high burden of proof they request, but rather that it's unreasonable for one to have everything available ''immediately''. Even experts don't carry around stacks of all the collected [[evidence]] for their position.

In retort, users of OTS almost always have some factoid (often a [[one single proof]]-style argument) or discredited research at the ready. It's also used as a springboard into several other fallacies or fallacious arguments, because once you've fallen for the trap, they can throw their fallacious spells at each thing you cite.

==Abuse==
{{main|Faith}}
Some people (especially [[creationists]]) abuse the fallaciousness of OTS to say something like, "Just because I don't have an explanation for why I believe what I believe ''now'', this doesn't mean that no such reason exists, and thus there's no reason for me to reconsider my [[belief]]s." Taken to an extreme, this argues that, because it's ''possible'' that a good reason for a belief exists, that belief is justified. This, too, is fallacious. There is a difference between being ''unprepared to defend'' a position (which you have good reasons for holding, though just not on hand at the moment) and holding a belief for literally no (or indeed some rather poor) reason.

==See also==
*[[One single proof]]

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Neologisms]]
[[Category:Conditional fallacies]]

Categories: Neologisms, Conditional fallacies