[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.

[DagAgren]

Feel free to provide me wrong by showing a non-libertarian source that takes this term seriously.

[textgel]

Appeal to authority (points for variety at least) is a logical fallacy that I literally pointed out earlier.