which fallacy is it?

[DerekK]

If, in composing a reply to a text-based discussion, I were to explain a few reasons/arguments I had for disagreeing with my opponent...

...and in my parting paragraph, stated that my opponent's text was so full of errors/mistakes that I could continue rebutting them for quite some time...

What logical fallacy would that be?

I wanted to say "poisoning the well" but that usually applies to something you say of your opponent at the outset. But it seems to me that it must be some sort of fallacy to end a reply with a "and you're wrong in six other ways too" kind of dig.

[Chris Porter]

I don't see that as any sort of fallacy, especially since there is a cogent comeback that is entirely adequate to address it: If it mattered that much for you to mention the errors, it should matter enough to address them.

To me, the added "you're wrong in six other ways, too" is only psychological chest puffery sort of language, just simple verbal aggression meant to cow the opponent by implying that one can wipe the floor with them, but one is too lazy to do so. I don't believe that sort of thing is considered an argument fallacy.

[Ovazor]

I
What logical fallacy would that be?


Stricltly speaking, a logical fallacy is a case of a logical argument, i,e. one which relies at least implicitly on a logical deduction, but where there is some kind of error in the logic which renders the argument invalid.

Your exaple was not an argument at all, neither a logical argument or a logical fallacy, merely an assertion or observation that there were errors.

[EricK]

It is a little like an appeal to authority, where you have set yourself up as the authority. i.e. if you correctly point out 2 errors but say you have also spotted 6 more errors without further elaborating on what they are or why they are errors, then you are inviting people to accept that the other 6 errors are genuine simply because you (who have correctly spotted 2 errors) say that they are errors.

[rationalOne]

If, in composing a reply to a text-based discussion, I were to explain a few reasons/arguments I had for disagreeing with my opponent...

...and in my parting paragraph, stated that my opponent's text was so full of errors/mistakes that I could continue rebutting them for quite some time...

What logical fallacy would that be?It's not a fallacy at all, it's just a statement.

I've encountered postings that have many errors that would be difficult to address. Attempting to disentangle everything would take some time, and sometimes I just throw up my hands and don't bother replying at all.

Your response is better than nothing, and you're left open to demonstrate your point at a later time.