Such as, if it's obvious someone knows the argument you're trying to make but I'd purposely pretending to misunderstand it
I have taught logic courses for many years, and I have never heard of a name for this fallacy, so it is not one of the more commonly recognized ones. I really do like this idea, though, since I think in debate people will often play dumb as a strategy in order to take the sting out of someone's point. I've seen it employed many, many times, and I think the best thing to do in response is to make your point even clearer, if you can, and sort of force the person to seem dumb. For a lot of people their vanity will outweigh their manipulativeness and intellectual dishonesty, and they will likely admit that they see your point -- but then of course they will likely divert or jump into some other BS tactic. Best not to talk with people who do this kind of thing, if you can possibly avoid it.
It is called 'Fu......uh.....Messing with your mind'.
It is generally called "lying".
It's not a logical fallacy.
argumentum ad hominem, the informal fallacy that does not have factual reason of logic, can be countered with refute,
A misrepresentation of someone's argument is a straw man. [ Wikipedia.org Link ].
Intentionally committing fallacies is called intellectual dishonesty, and is one of the greatest vices in philosophy.
In discourse, people should give the most charitable interpretation of an argument they are trying to refute. See [ Wikipedia.org Link ]
This is sometimes referred to as "steel-manning" (the opposite of "straw man"), where you are attacking the argument in its strongest form. It means people are helping each other learn, rather than ignoring arguments, talking past each other and focusing on attacking points irrelevant to the central argument. I don't use this site to ask questions anymore, but when I did, I was often frustrated by people who would post a criticism of an irrelevant point or misinterpretation as their entire answer, without a genuine attempt to address the question.
Daniel Dennett describes Rapoport's rules as follows:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Source: [ Brainpickings.org Link ]
Intellectual honesty and integrity are basic principles in philosophical discourse. This is why debate formats don't work, where the goal is to use dishonest tactics to make your "opponent" look as stupid as possible in order to persuade the masses.
Your question itself is a logical fallacy.
First you say the fallacy for purposely misunderstanding, then you give an example and of how you'd purposely pretend to misunderstand. These are two opposite things.
The logical fallacy in your question itself is that you asked a question, and give an example stating the opposite of your original question. This is mind boggling.
This was likely unintentional, and for me somewhat surreal, but you committed a logical fallacy by asking an unanswerable question
In response to your original question, that's not a logical fallacy. Perhaps a bit of bad faith or a defense mechanism of the ego. Maybe a form of cognitive dissonance.
Most fallacies are types of unwitting ignorance. Purposeful ignorance is not a fallacy, but a deliberate, bad faith tactic.
Sounds like a liberal. It is illogical.
The logical fallacy is straw-man argument to justify circular logic.as a diversionary tactic that often fails.Your facts are uncoordinated. Hanging someone on their own hypocrisies discredits and defames the person who intentionally misunderstands. It often backfires.and the person who misunderstands intentionally look like a total ignorant fool.
A straw man argument usually makes its` way into the debate..