Dont Fall For These Three Fallacious Debating Tactics
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009
by e
Dhammabucha Rocksprings Meditation
These are three of the most common underhanded tactics used in debates.They come into play as an attempted deflection from the main argument that your opponent is usually losing and can no longer argue intelligently. If you watch out for them and keep bringing your opponent back to the original premise of the debate, your opponent will have no choice but to discuss the actual facts of the argument instead of trying to wiggle out of them.
Example:
"I should not be prosecuted for stealing songs off the internet. The internet is a free medium, and if you put your song there, expect it to be pirated. Isn't the internet free speech?"
This one- changing the subject and throwing your opponent off track - is used constantly. The attempt is to shift the focus from the individual who stole a song, to the bigger question of intellectual property on the internet. When you discover this attempt to change the subject and stray away from the main point, keep focused on the original question and keep coming back to it as many times as you need to without falling for another subject. This takes discipline with an experienced Red Herring expert!
2. Circular Reasoning (Using an unproven point to prove a point)
Example:
PRO: "God is real!"
CON: "How can you prove that God is real?"
PRO: "The Bible states that God is real."
CON: "So why should I believe what the Bible says?"
PRO: "Because God's hand wrote the Bible."
This fallacious, circling argument appears all the time in many different forms. Once you catch on to its deception, you can catch it quickly and bring your opponent back to reality and the authentic question, which is: Can you prove that God exists first, before using God as an answer? .
3. Straw Man (Oversimplifying the opponent's argument)
Example:
PRO: "Health care should be mandatory for everyone so that we all share the cost burden with Society."
CON: "This is a free country. No one can make me pay for anything. It‘s just another tax, and high taxes are what led to our recession. Do you want higher taxes?"
This oversimplifies the argument instead of getting into the details. The straw man is something that is easy to pound your opponent over the head with; "taxes, free country, the flag, nationalism, God and country, etc. This overstatement, that "no one can make me pay in a free country" only ignites passions and ignores the reality that we all pay in one way or the other depending upon national priorities. The argument should be about these priorities rather than a simplification. The term "Straw Man" originated with the idea of a fighter who set up a dummy (straw man) to fight, and easily knocked it over!
The best way to win an argument is to stay with the facts and not allow your opponent to stray off track by: Changing the subject, Using unprovens to prove a point, or Oversimplifying the argument so that it can be disregarded. Once you catch on to these deceptions, it's fun to watch your opponents squirm when you catch them in one of the fallacies.
There are many other fallacious debating tricks that religious zealots and political quacks, to name only a couple, use to confuse people. It's in your best interest to study these before you get into the fray. Otherwise, your argument may be sound, but you will be defeated by simple trickery.
Get educated about fallacious arguments, you will be pleased with the results.
This Article has been viewed 1,983 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (4 total)Great article, and good points to be aware of when debating or even just thinking something through in your own head!A "strawman" doesn't have to be an over-simplified version of the true argument, it covers any mis-representation of the true argument.Wiki has a good example of a strawman argument:Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification....person B is not responding to the actual argument given by person A, they are responding to a straw-man version of it which they have created themselves, and which is very different to what person A actually said.A's argument was to liberalize alcohol laws.B's strawman version of A's argument is rather different and boils down to - "we should allow unrestricted access to intoxicants"Obviously this strawman version is a lot easier to attack than the much less extreme argument A is actually presenting, but since no-one is presenting the strawman version, attacking it is a waste of both A and B's time!Thanks Ben, good "Straw Man" example. Do you, by any chance know what the fallacious arguments are called in these dialogues:
Pro: "Medicare should be for everyone."
Con: "Socialist!"
and . . .
Pro: "Society is becoming more violent, especially among teenagers."
Con: "What would you know, you're an ex-con that never even graduated from college."The first one is a kind of strawman, sort of turning "medicare should be for everyone" into a strawman version not stated by the first person - "we should become a socialist country" or at least "I am a socialist".Supporting medicare for everyone does not require one to be a socialist.The second one is an ad hominem - attacking the person rather than their argument.The first one could also be an example of an association fallacy (in this case "guilt by association") mixed with ad homimen - Pro claims medicare should be for everyone, socialists also claim medicare should be for everyone, therefore Pro is a socialist (which Con considers an insult against Pro as Con doesn't like socialists).The second premise in that ("socialists claim medicare should be for everyone") is just a bare assertion of course, and may or may not be true!Thanks Ben. You da man!
Great article. The best way to win a debate is with facts, pure and simple. Everything else is showmanship. Good job, as always.Hey Michael, I always appreciate your comments - from a straight shooter!
Interesting article. One question that really stood out to me about this article was the question, "what is the purpose of debate?" On some level people debate to try to persuade others to their point of view. Yet, I think if we approach it with an honest and open minded attitude we "debate" to find the truth of the matter. The truth is found in evidence and in facts, not in a clever technique.However, one other thought came to mind... "what is truth?"I think the conflicts that we have motivate us to debate, but also the idea of what truth is stands in the way of getting to the true truth.Today, we have lost the confidence that statements of fact can ever be anything more than just opinions. We no longer know anything for certain beyond our subjective preferences. The word "truth" now means "truth for me". We are in an era of dogmatic skepticism.If "true truth" can't be known, then the concept of moral truth becomes incoherent. Ethics become relative. Right and wrong is matter of opinion. This may seem liberating, however it causes more conflict and moral decay. Every debate ends with the question "says who?". Nothing is gained. Debate is fruitless.You can appear to "win" a debate with clever techniques, but that doesn't mean your argument is true. There needs to be a final authority to decide who "wins" a debate, otherwise it is only a matter of opinion. Without an absolute truth, there can ultimately be no right or wrong.
Hey Jim, I love your comments! You ask so many interesting questions. Luckily, I have all the answers. (Just kidding).
Jim: Interesting article. One question that really stood out to me about this article was the question, "what is the purpose of debate?" On some level people debate to try to persuade others to their point of view. Yet, I think if we approach it with an honest and open minded attitude we "debate" to find the truth of the matter. The truth is found in evidence and in facts, not in a
e: Agree 100%. Fallacious arguments are just clever techniques. But the truths we discover always must be conventional truths, not absolute truths, because absolute truths are ineffable and can never be proven. Belief, belief in absolute truth is what separates religion from science and philosophy, both based on observable and verifiable facts.
Jim: However, one other thought came to mind... "what is truth?"
e. In my opinion, ultimate truth is an idea in the mind for most, something that the mind believes that it can know. And for some people it can be known, but never explain it in the context of existence (Platos cave).
Ultimate truth is real, but doesn‘t exist. Existence is never real, just cause and effect in constant flux, but our minds try to make it real for security.
Ultimate truth never had a beginning, never will end, is beyond eternity, beyond knowledge, beyond everything and anything that can be thought of by our star dust minds, which in my experience are no more than ants crawling across a page of Shakespeare thinking that they can understand the book. Ultimate truth is not of the past or future, only observable in this one moment that moves so quickly that we would never be able to hold it before sliding quickly into the past which is always dead. But we can touch it, and it can change our lives. Then the mind usually makes the rookie mistake of transferring the experience of the unknown to the experience of the known, to our particular beliefs, which leads to assuming that no other religion can possibly experience what we have experienced. His is of course just the infantile misunderstanding of a bloated ego.
Jim: I think the conflicts that we have motivate us to debate, but also the idea of what truth is stands in the way of getting to the true truth.
e. In my humble opinion, the mind can glimpse Ultimate truth, but has no capacity to explain it. What happens after an experience of ultimate truth, which is commonplace in meditation, is that the person becomes very compassionate and tolerant of others, because truth has a way of cutting through the illusions of separation, separation being the conflicts brought up about arguing over conventional truths. If we only touch conventional truths in our practice, thinking that they are ultimate truths, then our actions will usually betray a separation or cult like mentality where we isolate ourselves form those who don‘t agree with us, rather than understanding the root of those disagreements, which is a mind in turmoil.
Jim: Today, we have lost the confidence that statements of fact can ever be anything more than just opinions. We no longer know anything for certain beyond our subjective preferences. The word "truth" now means "truth for me". We are in an era of dogmatic skepticism.
e. Your argument is a broad brush fallacy that “everyone has lost confidence in facts.” This is not true, everyone has not lost confidence in facts, nor is the statement that you portray as fact: “We no longer know anything for certain beyond our subjective preferences. The word "truth" now means "truth for me. We are in an era of dogmatic skepticism.”
Society operates on facts. A problem arises when we confuse facts with belief, which I believe you have done here. Truth for you may be an ultimate truth which cannot be proven by fact, and without proof, ultimate truth becomes a belief, the details of which I have explained before. If you cannot substantiate your claim that you have a handle on ultimate truth, which in my opinion is not possible because of the ineffable quality of ultimate truth, then any argument you have would deteriorate into, “Just believe blindly what I say,” because you cannot really prove what you say. This is not a valid argument, per se, because it is backed up by circumstantial evidence. It is at best a call to religion based on blind faith. And there is nothing wrong with that. Many people have found their religion that way. It’s okay with me!
Jim: If "true truth" can't be known, then the concept of moral truth becomes incoherent. Ethics become relative.
e: Agreed. Ultimate truth can’t be known. Without going into dizzying detail; morality is not an ultimate truth, nor based upon an ultimate truth, its based on cause and effect. and therefore morality changes.
Jim: Right and wrong is matter of opinion. This may seem liberating, however it causes more conflict and moral decay. Every debate ends with the question "says who?". Nothing is gained. Debate is fruitless.
e: Agreed. Right and wrong is a matter of opinion. It’s not liberating or restrictive, it is fact. Just look back in history at the different mores and laws that existed. Where we get into trouble is when we try to force our opinions upon others without discourse. This causes conflict. Opinions are of the mind, and each mind is different. Every true debate ends with the best presentation of verifiable facts, because all debates involve conventional truth, never ultimate truth because ultimate truth is not verifiable. Belief in a particular ultimate truth is left to religious belief, which I have explained before ad nauseam.
Jim: You can appear to "win" a debate with clever techniques, but that doesn't mean your argument is true. There needs to be a final authority to decide who "wins" a debate, otherwise it is only a matter of opinion.
e: A professional legitimate debate is never won on clever techniques, they are seen through and challenged much too quickly. A real debate is won or lost on verifiable facts. If there are no verifiable facts, then it is not a debate, it is a regurgitation of opinions, “personal” or “final authority” (which is just a personal opinion glorified) and not based in fact, and therefore never winnable except through coercion or trickery. No argument is ever fundamentally true, only true for the moment it is being argued, depending on the present facts. Everything changes. There is no final authority because that would be an ultimate truth which cannot interact with conventional reality, except for changing the underlying tendencies (not thought or opinions or ideas, but openness to love, understanding, and inclusion of all human beings), in people who are able to contact, for a moment, the ultimate truth, in my humble opinion.
Jim: Without an absolute truth, there can ultimately be no right or wrong.
e: Agreed, in a way. You say that there can ultimately be no right or wrong, where I say that there can never be an ultimate right and wrong. A big difference on inflection. There can be right and wrong at this moment in this society and in this culture for a vast majority of the people, but there can never be an ultimate right and wrong because due to cause and effect, existence as we experience it is in constant flux. And an ultimate truth can never dictate that which changes, because ultimate truth is definitively unchanging itself. For example; it was right at one time for Christians in the South to keep slaves, now it’s not.
Well, thank “God” it’s a rainy day here in Texas which precludes my working on building our next meditation cabin up on mountain. So I had a chance to answer your questions more in depth. Can’t always say that I’ll have that much time, but it was fun. Hope you have a great day . . .
Metta (loving kindness) ……e
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.