Matthew E. Taft

I’ve recently been involved in a couple conversations which could be classified as debates. They do not always begin that way, but what often happens is that two people who are part of the conversation find themselves at odds about a particular issue that comes up, and they “have it out” about this issue before proceeding. I’ve begun to see three “tricks” used by those who begin to lose an argument. These “tricks” seem to give them the upper hand, but when considered correctly, actually don’t hold any weight. My reason for sharing them is so that people can identify them when they are used by others or recognize when they are about to use them and do otherwise =).

Now, I haven’t been formally educated in the different ways of argument and their classification, but it certainly would make things easier if I had. Doing some online research has helped, and I’ll explain as best as I can about these two tricks.

#1: The Red Herring

I think the Red Herring best describes the first kind of trick I wanted to talk about. An irrelevant conclusion / thesis is when you present an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn’t address the issue in question. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. (“Ignoratio elenchi.” Wikipedia. 2008. 17 Mar 2008 ).

Example:

Someone on an online forum began a discussion by inviting all to post answers to a certain question, but asking that all restrict their comments from being offensive to any others. The result was that opposing sides of an issue were able to practice communicating their own–and challenging the others’–reasons in an open and honest manner. Then one person spoke up, in response to a reason given, with something similar to, “What, are you crazy?”

I responded to this person, telling him that I most likely agree with his position on the issue at hand, but I also reminded him of the guidelines set forth for the current thread we were in. I asked him to honor the request of the person who started the thread by trying to respond in an inoffensive manner. This person and I wrote back and forth for a while, and every time he responded to something I said, I wondered if I had not been clear enough on my previous post, because it appeared that he kept misunderstanding me. It ended with him writing something similar to: “You think Right and Wrong are far less important than making sure everyone feels good.”

At the time, I didn’t know the name “Red Herring,” but I responded, describing why I felt his argument was full of holes. Basically, he was losing his side of the argument, and in a final attempt to appear on the upper hand, he twisted what I was saying and argued against that so that he could appear right. The problem was that everyone could re-read what I had posted and see that he was grabbing what he said out of thin air.

#2: Get to the Point! a.k.a. T-T-Today, Junior!

I don’t know how to classify this next trick. If someone reading this knows a name for it, please let me know. To be clear, I am not talking about the formal fallacy “Affirming the consequent,” where the reasons for a conclusion don’t prove the conclusion. In those cases it is clear that you must discuss the reasons to show why they don’t prove the conclusion. I am talking about something different.

It is sort of similar to the Red Herring, except instead of twisting the entirety of what someone has said, they knit-pick bits and pieces of what the person is saying that don’t have much to do with the actual argument. In so doing, the main argument is never addressed.

Example:

John: “I passed the math exam.”
Mark: “How do you know?”
John: “Well, yesterday the teacher left her red grade book–”
Mark: “Yesterday was Sunday.”
John: “I mean Friday. She left her red grade book opened on her desk–”
Mark: “She doesn’t have a red grade book. It’s blue.”
John: “Whatever! Anyway, I saw my name, and there was an ‘A’ next to the exam.”

In this example, Mark questions how John came to the conclusion that he passed the math exam. Then, as John gives the reasons for his conclusion, John knit-picks at parts of the reason that hold no bearing over the actual argument. They could be true or false without changing the conclusion. This may not be the best example, but hopefully you get my point.

#3: I Can’t Defend Myself; Let’s Stop Talking About It.

Again, I’m at a loss for a title on this one. Maybe there isn’t a title. But it bothers me. It goes like this:

Example:

John: “I believe the earth is flat.”
Mark: “Why do you believe that?”
John: “Because it looks flat to me.”
Mark: “Here are some very good reasons why the earth is not flat.”
John: “Well, it’s what I believe. You don’t have to believe it.”

I guess all this shows is that someone is not open to alternatives to their beliefs, and this bothers me. I don’t like it when people just state what they believe, why they believe it, and then don’t feel inclined to defend it further. I think this is because I really like to think as deeply as possible about the things that I believe. If someone brings up a point I haven’t thought of, which may disprove something I believe, I think I’d rather believe correctly than continue to believe incorrectly. I prefer to say, “I haven’t thought of that. I’ll look into it,” as opposed to just closing the door to the conversation by saying, “I never asked you to believe it (undertone: ‘leave me alone now’).”