One of the fields in which trivial objections are particularly common is politics, and an example of such arguments based on irrelevant details is the case when opponents argue about the feasibility of reforms. For instance, in healthcare, many measures seem controversial to the public, and the opinions vary depending on individual priorities. This type of logical fallacy in arguments can be defined by the emphasis on the data not linked to the main subject, and the situation in which politicians cannot agree on initiatives confirms this idea.
In the mentioned scenario, the problem can be caused by ideological standpoints of the people involved in the process when they are taken into account during the discussion. One of them might claim the necessity of changes by relying on appropriate evidence, according to which some population groups are not covered by insurance, other things being equal. Meanwhile, the person with the opposite stance might reply to this statement by accusing the former speaker of liberalism. Even though this activist might be of liberal views, this fact does not contribute to the task of finding the truth and determining the future political course in the matter. In other words, the argument of this kind cannot be effective since the information not related to the problem is referred to by one of the participants. In this way, the reason why the described case should be attributed to trivial objection is the focus on details which are not essential for the outcome and distract public attention from the actual problem.
To summarize, the emergence of logical fallacies and, more specifically, trivial objections in the discussions of politics connected to healthcare is a common practice. It is conditional upon the intention of opponents to justify each others’ views by ideological factors rather than orienting on the issue under consideration. Therefore, the typical attributes of this type of a challenge in seeking truth confirm its inappropriateness for the purposes of this process.