What is it called when person A makes an argument, then person B picks on a minor error in A's argument (such as a typo or misattribution of a quote) and uses this small error to argue that everything A says cannot be trusted and (by implication) must be false?
The closest I've got is "straw man", but that isn't quite right, since in this case the error is genuine.
I feel this technique must have a name, since it seems to be incredibly common in real-world debate!