Appeal to Offence

I would like to propose a new logical fallacy.

Appeal to Offence

This happens when one side shows they are offended by something the opposition said or the way they said it.

This is followed by insisting that they apologize.

The apology must be complete and without qualification.  (Especially if it was unintentional.)  After all, an apology followed by a 'but' is not really an apology at all. 

Since the opponent cannot say anything else after they apologize, the offended party can then leave the debate or argument with the last word being an apology to them.  The apology can easily be construed as an admission of fault and defeat.

In this way an argument or debate can be easily shutdown and virtually won without providing any further evidence or logical backup for their side. 

(The other outcome is that the offender will refuse to apologize, or will offer an apology that is not accepted because it is followed by a 'but' or some soft of explanation or qualification. In this case the offended can accuse them of being uncivil and exit the situation while claiming the moral high ground.)

Like all fallacies, there are times when it may appear to be a fallacy but is not.  Naming this a fallacy does not mean that you cannot get offended in a debate, discussion or argument.  An appeal to a legitimate authority who knows the issue being discussed is not a fallacy of appealing to authority.  It also does not mean that you shouldn't apologize if you offend someone.  It is a fallacy if it is used as a means to settle the issue or end the debate. 

Being offended and wanting an apology (and giving an apology) is not a fallacy, not a logical problem, as long as it doesn't take precedent over the evidence and logic of the debate or argument.