[textgel]

Well lets see... oh that's odd, that meaningless term appears to have a real meaning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap . Now why would you be willing to lie about that?

Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.

[DagAgren]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kafkatrap?s=t

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kafkatrap

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=kafka...

[textgel]

Yes those are dictionary's for definitions of words not a repository of debate tactics; if you'd checked you'd also notice that there's no entry for "motte and bailey falacy", "Appeal to Ignorance" or "appeal to authority"; funnily enough it doesnt prevent those existing either.

[DagAgren]

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

Still not seeing it.

[textgel]

Well yes if you purely limit yourself to a single college of liberal arts list of definitions then you won't, however search engines are your friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.

[DagAgren]

Ah yes, Wikipedia, with one source form a libertarian propaganda rag. Very reputable.

Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.

[textgel]

And at last you've taken my advice

> Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.

Allow my to quote from one your trusted sources: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

> Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.