Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

244
 questions about 
Justice
43
 questions about 
Color
117
 questions about 
Children
36
 questions about 
Literature
2
 questions about 
Culture
69
 questions about 
Business
67
 questions about 
Feminism
32
 questions about 
Sport
58
 questions about 
Punishment
80
 questions about 
Death
284
 questions about 
Mind
31
 questions about 
Space
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
34
 questions about 
Music
154
 questions about 
Sex
208
 questions about 
Science
105
 questions about 
Art
68
 questions about 
Happiness
4
 questions about 
Economics
392
 questions about 
Religion
51
 questions about 
War
77
 questions about 
Emotion
75
 questions about 
Perception
54
 questions about 
Medicine
218
 questions about 
Education
75
 questions about 
Beauty
39
 questions about 
Race
221
 questions about 
Value
110
 questions about 
Animals
81
 questions about 
Identity
287
 questions about 
Language
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
58
 questions about 
Abortion
110
 questions about 
Biology
23
 questions about 
History
96
 questions about 
Time
70
 questions about 
Truth
134
 questions about 
Love
374
 questions about 
Logic
89
 questions about 
Law
151
 questions about 
Existence
1280
 questions about 
Ethics
170
 questions about 
Freedom
574
 questions about 
Philosophy
88
 questions about 
Physics
2
 questions about 
Action
27
 questions about 
Gender
124
 questions about 
Profession
24
 questions about 
Suicide

Question of the Day

Philosophers are usually not the right people to ask for fallacy names. Most of us don't remember many of them, and aside from a handful (begging the question, for instance) seldom mention them by name. You mention the red herring fallacy here. That's probably good enough, but it's not any better than just noting that the response misses the point. If A says that taxing would be more effective than philanthropy and B says that philanthropy does some good, all A need say is "I agree: philanthropy does some good, but my point is that it's less effective than simply taxing people." A might be right or might be wrong, but what B says is irrelevant to the claim at issue, since A's claim is entirely consistent with B's reply.

I notice this a lot on Quora. There's a whole sub-genre of questions in which people people describe a bit of reasoning gone wrong, and then ask for the name of the fallacy. Often the person has already done a good job of saying what's wrong. Sometimes they haven't, but in those cases a fallacy name won't help unless it's accompanied by an explanation.

Back in the day, I taught informal logic regularly. The standard texts always included sections on the fallacies and I dutifully taught them. But every year I had to review the names myself. Looking back on it, I hope that the students got better at spotting errors in reasoning and being able to describe the errors in a way that would be useful to someone who didn't know the fallacy name. But my guess is that, like me, most of the students didn't remember many of the names.

In any case, your "using a nugget of truth to distract from a larger issue" is a perfectly good way of summarizing what's wrong here. And I dare say one could collect lots of examples of this sort of move. But far as I know, it hasn't generated a sub-literature of its own, because bad move though it is, understanding why it's a bad move is pretty straightforward—as you've nicely shown.