When a statement makes a mockery of another's argument instead of providing counter-evidence, it is exemplifying which fallacy?

The scenario described illustrates the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by mocking or belittling it rather than addressing its merits or providing substantive counter-evidence. By resorting to ridicule, the person sidesteps logical debate and instead aims to provoke an emotional response, often undermining rational discourse.

In a debate, rather than presenting facts or logical reasoning to counter an argument, one might focus on making fun of the other side, which distracts from the actual issues at hand. This tactic can be particularly persuasive to an audience that may not have the expertise to evaluate the arguments on their own, leading to misunderstandings or simplified views of complex issues.

Focusing solely on derision rather than a well-reasoned discussion highlights the lack of a substantive foundation in the argument being made, thus categorizing it as an example of the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. This approach ultimately weakens the debate instead of fostering a more informed exchange of ideas.