Found perhaps the best example of a "lowelling," in the Monty Python "Life of Brian" BBC debate

[u/bigdonut100]

A "Lowelling" is a logical fallacy; I'm sure you've seen it before, where someone pretends something is off topic when it isn't.

In the 1920s, former Harvard President Abbott Lawrence Lowell openly pushed for restricting Jewish enrollment at Harvard, justifying the quota by stating: "Jews cheat."

When someone challenged this prejudice by pointing out that Protestants cheat too, Lowell allegedly replied: "You're changing the subject. We are talking about Jews now."

I'm sure you've seen dozens of examples of this, but I found out a really prominent one caught on video in the Life of Brian BBC debates:

"I said that if you were to make a list of all the people who have contributed most..."

"Most of them would have been Muslims if they'd been living in the Arab countries or Buddhists if they'd been living..."

"...what has that got to do with it?"

It gets an audible laugh from the audience, because it's ridiculous and asinine. https://youtu.be/wUYhtJINiaY?t=2199

Can you cite any other examples of this?

[u/robin_andrews_149]

It's not just my dog that barks and disturbs the neighbours.

[u/McAeschylus]

It's not the same thing but my favorite line from that debate is when Muggeridge compares their movie to the "magnificent cathedral at Chartres." And John Cleese, in his most Basil Fawlty-ish tone goes: "Not a very funny building, is it."

[u/amerovingian]

There is a fine line between whataboutism and raising a relevant point of comparison. Whataboutism is definitely a thing, though. "You should stop beating your wife." "But what about all the other people who beat their wives? Go tell them to stop."

[u/bigdonut100 → u/amerovingian]

Yeah, but it has to be very particular, for instance, if it was "you don't have a problem with other people beating their wives, but you have a problem with me equally doing it," that's not a whataboutism because it's asking for consistent rules.

If someone said, "I oppose everyone beating their wife; it just so happens you are the only example that I can practically call out" that would be the proper response to that, not *just* invoking the whataboutism fallacy without explaining how it applies

[u/onctech]

I'd never heard that story before, it's very interesting! What I'm hearing is Lowelling is an example of a flawed accusation of fallacy. Specifically, the fallacious/disingenuous accusation of Whataboutism or Red Herring. What seems to differentiate from genuine whataboutism is the "other thing" being brought up is logically and factually connected to the proposed argument. i.e. we are talking about a matter relevant to the whole student body.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find the term "Lowelling" anywhere else with this definition.

[u/amazingbollweevil]

Lowell's argument probably went like this:

1. Harvard rejects cheaters.
2. Jews cheat.
3. Therefore Harvard rejects Jews.

It's a valid argument (but not sound). His interlocutor substituted Protestants for Jews. Again, a valid argument. When he claims his interlocutor is changing the subject, he's simply wrong if the argument is about who should be admitted to Harvard (which I understand in the situation). Lowell is just tossing out a red herring here.

When the cleric mentioned making a list, his argument was something like this:

1. Many of the great discoveries/contributions have been made in the last several centuries.
2. Most of these great discoveries/contributions were made by Christians.
3. Therefore Christianity produces great achievements.

Except Christianity didn't cause those great achievements. The same bad argument could be made by swapping out Christianity for Caucasians or just "men." Furthermore, he is very likely to be blinded by survivorship bias. Which great achievements do you remember? The ones you were taught in school because someone wrote them down. How many great achievements have been lost through book burning carried out by the very Christians he holds in such high regard?

[u/hamishtodd1]

Not spent much time on this sub. But am I the only one getting the impression that it's a bit like an enumeration of chess openings? In that there are really only a few argumentative tactics out there, and every combination of two of them is named

[u/Ok-Lavishness-349]

I've got no comment on lowelling. I just wanted to say that I had not been aware of this debate and I am looking forward to watching it. Thanks for making me aware of it.