The term that was used was "arguing with the premise of the question", I believe; see this question/answer.
In general, it is discouraged to argue with the premise of a question unless it is a factual disagreement - i.e, if the question is "1 million children die every year because they play video games. How much time should I let my little one play to avoid being another statistic?" it's reasonable to object to that on factual grounds (since that's factually not true).
But if the question is not factually wrong, but you disagree with their opinion - even something close-to-factual, such as "Violent video games are a major cause of kids shooting up schools, so I don't want to let my kid play Fortnite. How can I convince him to leave it alone?" - you shouldn't answer with an argument for letting them play Fortnite. Answer their question as stated (with an answer that helps them help their kid understand why they don't want them to play fortnite) or leave the question alone and don't answer it.