A variant of the fallacy argument from repetition (ad nauseam). Instead of repeating the claim, something irrelevant, often personal is repeatedly said. This fallacy is usually not considered as a seperate from the argument from repetition. However, it’s often introduction in modern society makes it deserving of a distinct treatment.
Called nagging because the behaviour or form of communication called nagging is used as a form of a rational argument. More so, the speaker who commits the fallacy repeatedly brings back previously discussed subjects.
Example 1:
Person A: “Abortions are immoral!”
Person B: “I see that you’re upset, but I don’t agree with you. Perhaps, you can explain why abortions are immoral.”
Person A: “I’m right!”
Person B: “But why?”
Person A: “I’m right!”
Person B: “Okay, that’s not really an argument.”
Person A: “I’m right!”
Example 2:
Person A: “Dogs are better than cats.”
Person B: “You’re not a pet owner, how can you know that?
Person A: “I don’t have to own a cat, dogs are man’s best friend.”
Person B: “You’re not a pet owner. You’re not a pet owner. You’re not a pet owner!”
Person A: “But that doesn’t matter.”
Person B: “You’re not a pet owner.”
This kind of arguing is common with children or friends that want to annoy. Even though it’s absurd, it’s very common among current political discussions. Filibustering is a tactic used by any when stalling a bill or preventing a discussion about a bill. Nagging is the best way to do that, the bill is stalled and the listeners are exhausted.
Also, this fallacy finds itself in courts too. The best way to force a witness into making himself not credible is by nagging. When a lawyer wants the jury to focus on something and use that same thing against a witness, nagging is the tactic. However, experienced judges see through this and stop it right away.