A fallacy (and a type of AdHominem) where the speaker declares that his opponent is unworthy of the debate. Sometimes, this assertion is a justification for the speaker withdrawing from the debate (often DeclaringVictory), other times it is a form of intimidation or showmanship. And sometimes, like all fallacies, it is valid.

Examples

	* A physician debating medical technique with a (persistent) layperson, who (the layperson, that is) continues to make statements that are well-known to be false.
	* A religious person telling a non-believer that their opinions are suspect.
	* An atheist telling a believer that their opinions are suspect. ''Good catch -- ScottJohnson''
	* A member of one group (be it a nationality, political leaning, profession, etc.) telling a member of another that they cannot ''possibly'' know anything about the topic at hand due to their group affiliation.
	* Sometimes, someone with no discernible expertise at all (just a chip on their shoulder) attempting to browbeat their opponent. Most folk have an (at least slightly) inflated sense of self, and thus may devalue the opinions of others. ''I can't be wrong, can I?'' (On the other hand, some folk have a deflated sense of self, and overvalue the opinions of others.)
	* A tenured professor telling the PhD candidate that he's nowhere near ready to presenting his dissertation for review - that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Also related: AdVerecundiam

----
'''It's not a fallacy'''

Calling a person or proposition unworthy of debate is not a fallacy at all. It's not the kind of thing that can be a fallacy, because it's not reasoning, and therefore of course not invalid reasoning. People and propositions can indeed sometimes be unworthy of debate. The ignorant do often talk nonsense. They do often set up foolish criteria by which to reject the vastly more informed and sophisticated thoughts of experts. The rules of the game set up by the ignorant often preclude even the possibility of acquiring knowledge.

Calling someone a genuinely stupid person stupid ''to his face'' is just incompetent rhetoric. True as the claim may be, it doesn't enlighten or persuade.

-- BenKovitz

You may be slightly off point here. The fallacy kicks in when you '''assume''' someone's next statement will be nonsense before they begin. Of course, while this is a fallacy ''in theory'' (who knows? They might have said something brilliant, and anyway StupidQuestions are sometimes the most profound) it's often useful to avoid wasting your time (see the doctor example above).

----

Don't look at me; I just ignore cranks.

-----

Why bother to tell them that you are ignoring them? If you don't get along with somebody, simply ignore them without leaving traces. See also: ArgumentumAdInfinitum ''Stating that one ignores cranks on a page where that is a relevant topic of discussion, doesn't contradict the act of ignoring them. Now if someone were to do the Wiki equivalent of sticking out one's tongue, plugging one's ears, and saying "nah nah, I can't HEAR you", that would be inconsistent with a policy of ignoring cranks....''

See also DogmaticFallacy (because of the examples given above) - last edit Feb05 by gw01.tipp24.de

And MeatBall has a good, but lengthy write-up on DissuadeInteraction
* Please in the spirit of SeekFirstToUnderstand, read the entire article or nothing, as it has discussed several opposing approaches/ viewpoints.

----
FallaciousArgument