Extreme example: Team discussion about whether to buy A or B ends with decision to buy A.

Proponents of B are perpetually unhappy with the decision and will see any future crisis as an opportunity to push their agenda to get rid of A and buy B regardless of any correlation of crisis to A or B.

A zealot?

I don't want to be overly prescriptive in the question and eliminate good alternatives that I lack the imagination to think of. Might not be a single word, could be "cognitive bias".

A possible sentence might be: This person will assimilate all evidence into their "B" argument regardless of whether it fits, he's a "B" .

  • 1
    How would you use the word in a sentence? Please add an example to your question. This link contains useful tips on site norms for EL&U regarding word / term requests.
    – Lawrence
    Jul 8, 2016 at 2:37
  • I think truculent or pugnacious might be closely related, here. As in someone who is just looking for a reason to start the fight or argument again. Let me know your thoughts, @Andrew. Jul 8, 2016 at 11:23
  • 1
    @Rome_Leader perhaps a concrete real-world example. After any mass-shooting people on each side of the gun control argument both say "and this is a perfect example of why we (should / shouldn't) have guns". Clearly both sides will claim the other is pugnacious but isn't not quite the sentiment I'm looking to express.
    – Andrew
    Jul 8, 2016 at 11:30
  • Person B exhibits "confirmation bias" the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In terms of gun control both sides will accuse the other of succumbing to the "backfire effect", specifically given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.
    – Andrew
    Aug 23, 2016 at 4:42

1 Answer 1


Thanks for your clarifying comment above - I think your example usage enables me to make a better suggestion.

When someone uses an event to spur discussion of a topic in perpetual debate such as gun control or abortion, we may say that they are rehashing the argument:

to present (something) again in a slightly different form

to talk about or discuss (something) again

e.g. "We talk about gun control every time there is a mass shooting like this, and the points are always the same - is it really necessary to rehash that argument again?"

  • Now why didn't I think of this?!
    – Andrew
    Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.