"You are a fill in your favorite pejorative here." Make it a good one, now. I mean, "doofus" can be insulting, but not very biting. Make it something that really sticks like "hater" or "bigot" or the like. Because if you can label the arguer, you can end the argument. Mind you, it's a straight-up logical fallacy. Labeling people negatively (generally without any actual explanation, evidence, or reasoning) doesn't say a thing about the point that was being made. It isn't an argument. It's calling names. It's playground mentality. It is bad argumentation. Labeling someone is an effective technique because associating an opponent with a strong negative ("hater," "anti-choice," "bigot," etc.) shuts down all argument. It stops the discussion but doesn't answer the argument.
"I hate you haters." Maybe not the best example, but it is so easy to pick up but so common these days. People build these self-refuting arguments. "I will not tolerate intolerance." Or a recent example -- Critical Race Theory. The idea, they say, is that the concept of race isn't real and is merely a social construct created by white people to maintain power. Do you see it? Look again. If race is not real, then how can they refer to a particular race as the instigator? It's not real. If you look around and pay attention, you will find this over and over. Avoid denying your own argument in your own argument.
"Christianity teaches that we're supposed to kill gays." I know. I started with "Christianity," so you might think I'm talking about Christianity here. I'm not. The idea is that someone disagrees with X, so they misrepresent X to point out how wrong it is. This, too, is a standard logical fallacy -- the strawman. Hold up a false version of an opponent's argument and then tear it apart. But there is another side to this that is often missed. Often the person making the false argument doesn't know it. They haven't asked a pro-lifer, for instance, why they are pro-life (versus anti-abortion). They haven't asked an adherent of infant baptism why they believe in it. So, not actually knowing the position, they attack a false one ... poorly. Know what you believe and what your opponent believes when you aim to explain what's wrong with it.
"That's just your opinion." I just can't figure this one out. It's very popular. Think, say, of a book. I know ... the book I'd be thinking of is the Bible, but any book will do. I say that War and Peace says "this" which means that and here's why. The stunning retort is, "That's your opinion." What we have here is an identification, not an argument. When I say, "The Bible says this and this means that," "That's your opinion" doesn't explain why either it doesn't say it or it doesn't mean it. "I don't believe the Bible" doesn't either. None of that addresses the argument and, therefore, is not an argument.
"You're a Democrat. That means that you believe fill in your worst nightmare here." It's called "guilty by association." In this case it's a broad-brushed painting without regard to detail ... or facts. That I, for instance, call myself a Christian and the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church calls himself a "Christian" does not mean that the two of us have anything in common except for the name we claim for ourselves. But it is oh, so common to say, "Oh, you're a Christian? Then you must believe that 'God hates fags'." No, I don't. Sorry to disappoint. This kind of generalization doesn't help. Related to the previous point, know what your opponent believes before attacking them for what they don't believe because you've linked them to someone else.
Here's an interesting suggestion.
Remind them ... to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. (Titus 3:1-3)What does that say about our interactions and arguments? We should avoid maligning anyone. We should be peaceable and gentle (which goes a long way toward making better arguments). If you're a Christian arguing for the faith, remember that we have been what they currently are and show them consideration rather than ire.
And what to do if they persist?
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11)No fuss, no muss, no anger or malice. Mortal combat is another bad argument technique. We are called to better things.
15 comments:
The class that teaches logic and reason has the lowest attendance. I know because i wasn't there.. There was a time when i would love to debate with my wife about all kinds of subjects.
but today; debating with her is no fun.. she has taken on such an emotional bent when politics are discussed; that she has no reason or argument; just that she hates Trump. and when she tries to explain why, its all just hateful name calling. i am not a great fan of trump, but i used this illustration to show, emotional arguments just reduce us to blithering idiots.
I'm not entirely sure there ever was a time when emotional response was trumped by logic, but if there was, it is not now. It has been said that this is the great shortcoming on the right; they can't engage the left because the right is trying to use logic. A famous quote went something like, "If you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 30, you have no brain." True or not, it appears to be a common malady. Feel, don't think.
What’s sad is that so much of what passes for intelligent discourse is self refuting.
One type of argument i witnessed goes something like this" they have been debating x for years, so we can never really now x" this argument referred to scripture at the time. but i thought of it as a form of " concede there is no answer, therefor the argument is moot" thing... if i can make the argument seem superfluous, then i can save face by dismissing it.
but the point that it misses is, that there is always a pathway to the truth if you apply yourself. if the argument is between two people, the choices are : 1. one is wrong. 2. both are wrong. 3. one is right. 4. both are right( contradiction) so it would be lazy minded to simply give up because it seems everyone is debating the point.
An argument I’ve always laughed at goes something like, “Well, there’s disagreement about X, therefore we can’t know which side is right.”
Someone needs to tell them "Consensus doesn't decide the truth. Truth does."
Craig; that is exactly the case. it seems to be the lazy man's way out.
Stan: i hate it when your right...
What's always been annoying about that argument is that it treats all disagreement as if it's of equal value. It allows for even the flimsiest disagreement to negate something that is fact.
I've always seen it as a dodge. At best it has seemed like, "I don't want to think about it, so I'll just go with 'It hasn't been settled so I won't try.'" At best.
That's the best possible way to look at it. I agree that it's usually a dodge. It's essentially "If I can find one person, no matter how obscure or how bad their argument is, then I can announce that it's not settled. If It's not settled, then it's just your opinion."
Ah, the "just your opinion" defense. Covered above, eh?
I prefer "hunch". "It's just your 'hunch'!"
Opinion, hunch, neither are arguments. Wish I could get that across to those who like to use them. The other day I heard someone say "Tell them your truth," a close kin to "It's your hunch." It sounds magnanimous but almost always includes "But you're wrong" without any reason offered to think so.
Whatever the terminology used, the goal is to move the disputed item or concept into the realm of the subjective. Once something has been moved away from the realm of the objective, then it’s pis to make any claims or believe anything because it’s not objective. It’s a cheap and easy dodge intended to allow outrageous statements without having to worry about their accuracy.
I think somehow “ok” got transformed into “pis”.
It’s interesting that the simple observation that transferring something from the realm of the objective to the realm of the subjective and how that allows one side of a discussion to dodge, would generate so much personal angst from Dan.
It just seems obvious.
Post a Comment