Some suggestions :
A) non sequitur
B) deflection
C) being a member of the Republican party

C) being a member of the Republican party — Real Gone Cat

or Trumpian.

I don't like your proof because it proves me wrong, and I simply reject it possibly with some baseless argument or foolish comment. — SpaceDweller

Generally this would depend upon the fallacy people are using to reject it. The generic terms for this is fallacious thinking or non sequitur. Mostly I encounter people who use appeals to ignorance, arguments form incredulity or tu quoque fallacies.

Thank you both, it makes sense since there is no specific formal fallacy in it.

the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

I don't like your proof because it proves me wrong, and I simply reject it possibly with some baseless argument or foolish comment. — SpaceDweller

This sounds like confirmation bias, the falacy of not considering any argument that does not favor your view.

I don't like your proof because it proves me wrong, and I simply reject it possibly with some baseless argument or foolish comment. (....) How would you call my rejection of proof, in philosophical manner? — SpaceDweller

You’d think a philosopher would respond in a philosophical manner, right? At least one does, here:

“....General logic contains no directions or precepts for the faculty of judgement, nor can it contain any such. For as it makes abstraction of all content of cognition, no duty is left for it, except that of exposing analytically the mere form of cognition in conceptions, judgements, and conclusions, and of thereby establishing formal rules for all exercise of the understanding. Now if this logic wished to give some general direction how we should subsume under these rules, that is, how we should distinguish whether this or that did or did not stand under them, this again could not be done otherwise than by means of a rule. But this rule, precisely because it is a rule, requires for itself direction from the faculty of judgement. Thus, it is evident that the understanding is capable of being instructed by rules, but that the judgement is a peculiar talent, which does not, and cannot require tuition, but only exercise. This faculty is therefore the specific quality, the want of which no scholastic discipline can compensate. For although education may furnish, and, as it were, engraft upon a limited understanding rules borrowed from other minds, yet the power of employing these rules correctly must belong to the pupil himself; and no rule which we can prescribe to him with this purpose is, in the absence or deficiency of this gift of nature, secure from misuse.[26]

[26] Deficiency in judgement is properly that which is called stupidity; and for such a failing we know no remedy. A dull or narrow-minded person, to whom nothing is wanting but a proper degree of understanding, may be improved by tuition, even so far as to deserve the epithet of learned. But as such persons frequently labour under a deficiency in the faculty of judgement, it is not uncommon to find men extremely learned who in the application of their science betray a lamentable degree this irremediable want....”

That’s how I would call your rejection, given baseless argument or foolish comment. Kindly, deficiency in judgement, or harshly....stupidity.