A word for when an arguer states their case again but simultaneously claims the argument should cease?

Question

Is there a term for when an arguer simultaneously (1) states their case again and (2) claims the argument should stop?

Example:

Thread #4522, Post #51:  I will just say one last time that there
                         is no way Frank would have done that, and
                         it is clear at this point that the manager
                         was 100% correct in her assessment.  But
                         really, let's stop arguing about this.

It is odd because if the person really wants the back-and-forth to stop, then obviously they shouldn't lob another volley. It seems to be an attempt to end the argument while letting themself have the last word.

This is a very common (and rarely successful) tactic in arguments in online forums. I think the people doing it often don't realize the hypocrisy of what they are doing: they themselves are continuing the argument, while they are asking the other person to stop.

This isn't exactly a fallacious argument, so it is unlikely to appear in a list of fallacies, nor is it the sort of behavioral pattern that would appear in a list of unconstructive behaviors. And yet it is so common to see that I would expect there to be a term for it.

Here are the most related terms I can find, but none of them comes close to pinpointing this common tactic.

• "Argumentum ad baculum" with the implicit threat being that the argument will continue if the opponent does not capitulate. But this is not a physical threat.
• "Thought-terminating cliché", although there is not really a set phrase that is used, and the request to stop arguing is also not on-topic, so this is not a great fit either.
• "Argumentum ad nauseam" is often being used simultaneously, and this (saying the argument should stop) seems to be an appeal for the other person to let this tactic succeed already without the speaker needing to continue any longer.

I would expect the term to be a word or phrase usable in a sentence such as "The post quoted above in grey is a good example of ________." But even if the usage would differ from that, it would be useful to have any word or phrase that clearly indicates this tactic.

Answer 1

Expanding on my original answer as I think there are several phrases which describe this, though none (other than my suggested neologism) is fully adequate. My general feeling is that this is not well described as a being a fallacy but is more of a (fairly ineffective) debating tactic or gambit. It's certainly common, as it indicated by this amusing article about The Last Word.

Of the options I've found, I think the most relevant are:

Special Pleading

I'd say that what the speaker is doing is special pleading, as they are saying that they should be allowed to put their point across but others shouldn't have the right of reply. Special pleading fills your blank nicely, though it admittedly doesn't fully describe the practice in question.

Suppression of Evidence / One-Sided Argument

By preventing further discussion, or attempting to, the speaker is seeking to limit attention to only considerations favourable to their own position. This may introduce a bias in the evidence available to those party to the discussion. It is an attempt to create a one sided-argument. See the Wikipedia entry on Cherry Picking

Appeal to Censorship

I doubt this needs explaining, one source defines this as follows:

Appeal to censorship occurs when dissenting ideas are removed or silenced in order to make a statement appear unanswered, and thus more probably true. The idea comes down to "I'm correct because nobody else disagrees (because I removed [or prevented] all dissent)". RationalWiki

---

Last-Wordism

It's such a common phenomenon, it deserves a label of it's own. I doubt I'm the first person to use the phrase, but I couldn't find any examples online ... I suggest: Last-wordism

---

Not quite what you're after, but they are also attempting to convert their argument into a coup de grâce, Which Mirriam-Webster defines as:

• 1: a deathblow or death shot administered to end the suffering of one mortally wounded
• 2: a decisive finishing blow, act, or event - The decision to cut funding is the coup de grâce to the governor's proposal.

Answer 2

The OP is correct in describing this tactic as an example of "needing to get the last word". It does not provide any additional value to an argument but awards the person the satisfaction of not having to hear a rebuttal. This is inevitably awarded to one party in an "argumentum ad nauseam", but does not add or diminish either side of the argument.

However, claiming victory in an argument based on having the last word, classifies the position as an "argument from ignorance".

argument from ignorance: Assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa

Answer 3

But really, let's stop arguing about this is an example of pathos (appeal to emotion). The emotion being appealed to is empathy. An argument should emphasize reason. Whenever you accept a claim based on how it makes you feel without fully analyzing the rationale behind the claim, you are acting on pathos.

"The post quoted above in grey is a good example of Pathos."

Answer 4

Verbal nuking. You do not wish to continue the argument and so end it with a verbal nuke / final strike.

Answer 5

The technique is very dismissive. Call it a conversation ender:

A word, phrase or emoticon that abruptly and awkwardly ends a conversation...

--Urban Dictionary

Also: English Stackexchange, where answers include kill a conversation, break off a conversation, and close down the conversation.

Answer 6

It is similar to the concept of "declaring victory," which is what happens when a party states unilaterally that a conflict is over despite any real evidence that it is.

Answer 7

If the author of the “Post #51” at issue is in a position of authority over other forum members then I’d agree that such language is clearly designed to close the discussion after having “had the last word,” for it has been my experience that when bosses/parents/etc. use “I will just say [this] one last time” followed by a “suggestion” using “But really, let's …,” they are relying on their position of authority to expect that their “last word” and their “suggestion” are to be interpreted as the order of the day.

Directed to peers, however (and the mention of “the manager” might indicate that the poster is “merely” a peer), such language could be seen solely as an attempt by the poster to reiterate his/her position one final time, followed by a genuine suggestion/plea/offer to move on [to more important matters] by “agreeing to disagree/differ.”
(“resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable” from Wikipedia)

Granted, “But really, let's stop arguing about this” is perhaps a bit more “in your face” (or at least less of a cliché) than “But really, let's just agree to disagree/differ,” but I don’t see them at all as being inconsistent with/mutually exclusive of each other and I can easily see the two notions combined (i.e, “But really, let's stop arguing about this and agree to disagree/differ”), where the poster is simply offering/suggesting (but not demanding/declaring) a kind of “Modus Vivendi” truce or “[re]solution.”

If there is any validity to this interpretation, I’d characterize this tactic as being somewhat similar to the “thought-terminating cliché” mentioned by the OP, but only somewhat in that the poster is not necessarily interested in stifling further “thought,” but merely stopping (perhaps just postponing) a non-productive/ineffective, going-nowhere argument.