A compound logical fallacy/rhetorical trick I see often used to defend an absolute explanation — often an argument for monocausality — is the use of an all-or-nothing false dichotomy used to strawman, then summarily dismiss, all competing arguments. That is, someone who asserts that X caused entirely, 100%, by Y, claims that anyone who disputes this is therefore claiming that it's caused not at all, 0%, by Y, and since this is clearly false, their argument — and them — can be disregarded entirely.
For example, someone who asserts that climate change is 100% anthropogenic, and if someone brings up any other, natural, cause as a possible contributing factor to global warming, then claims that other person must be denying that there's any anthropogenic warming at all, and so can be dismissed as a "denialist." Note, the other person could be arguing it's, say, 90% anthropogenic and 10% astronomical factors, or any other balance between all or nothing, and they're still strawmanned as embracing the false "0% anthropogenic" position.
Or consider the Jevons paradox, where a technological improvement in the efficiency in use of some resource (originally coal) toward producing some end (steam power) can actually increase, rather than decrease, consumption of that resource. Sure, every time one is able to make an output with less of a particular input, that output becomes cheaper, and thus consumption of that output rises; and people have (marginally) more money to spend on other outputs, which may also use that particular input. That is, there's always a "rebound" in the input consumption over the expected reduction in consumption under the (incorrect) model where the outputs are fixed. However, most would acknowledge that whether this "rebound" is big enough to offset or exceed the efficiency-gain-driven consumption reduction — and thus have Jevons paradox in effect — depends on a number of factors, like elasticity of demand curves, economic growth, etc., and generally do not take the absolutist position that the paradox always holds…
…that is, except for one specific input, for which even otherwise reasonable, economically-literate folks suddenly insist that, outside short-term adjustment periods, Jevon's paradox indeed always holds. And further, make exactly the above false-dichotomy strawmanning; whenever someone argues that the rebound might, in at least one case, be less than that needed to fully offset, our absolutist thus claims this person must therefore be denying that the rebound is ever anything other than zero, that they must be arguing output is fixed, and therefore they are a clear economic ignoramus who may be summarily dismissed in perpetuity.
This input is, of course, human labor. All that nuance about demand curves suddenly goes out the window, labor-saving technology always "creates more jobs than it destroys," technological unemployment is always a temporary adjustment, and anyone who claims that this is anything less than an absolute iron law must therefore be committing the so-called "lump-of-labor fallacy." (In fact, every case I've seen where someone has been accused of committing the "lump-of-labor fallacy," it's always been exactly this sort of egregious, logically-fallacious-by-false-dichotomy strawmanning.)
Or, say when someone argues that the difference between official crime statistics between two nations is entirely due to "gaming" the stats on the part of one — that it's 100% propaganda and lies — and that anyone who disputes that it's all false, that some of the difference may be due to actual differences in the real crime rates must therefore believe that there's 0% distortion or "gaming," and is therefore a naïve idiot to be mocked. The existence of any middle ground — some distortion and cover-up, and some actual difference in crime and safety — is entirely excluded.
Again, we see this pattern of "all-or-nothing." It's either 100% or 0%, and anyone who disputes the former is strawmanned as asserting the latter.
