The Art of

Arguing
An Essay based on Madsen Piries How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic by Samantha R. Selman

The Art of Arguing

Logical fallacies have been studied for more than two thousand years and have since been developed into a type of art-form. Knowledge of them is useful, both to avoid those used by others and even to use a few with the intent to deceive, annoy and intimidate. Very often it is the case that is weak or unarguable that is supported by fallacies. Many of the fallacies are purely accidental when committed by some people. Others, however, use them purposely to intimidate those who do not support their beliefs. If there is insufficient force behind the argument and the evidence, fallacies can often add enough weight to support the argument. In this brief essay I have described the five most successful fallacies from Madsen Piries novel How to Win Every Argument, as well as given examples of each fallacy in use. A working knowledge of these fallacies not only provides a sufficient knowledge of how to argue, but also how to avoid arguments. Your ability to spot fallacies will enable you to defend yourself against their use by others, and your knowledge of them will enable you to make arguments go your way. Our first example is the red herring method. When hunting dogs begin to stray, a red herring is used to bring the dogs back to the correct trail. Tied to a string, the red herring is led across the trail the hounds are following. Its powerful aroma is strong enough to make them forget what they were following. The red herring is then led across the trail which the hunt-master prefers. In the study of argument, the red herring is led across the trail of an argument. The red herring, in brief, is merely a sophisticated way of changing the subject. The trick in using the red herring tactic successfully is this: the more the red herring seems to follow the original subject, the more attractive it is to follow, and the more effective it will be at diverting attention. Red herrings are used by those who have a bad case. You should never set out upon a weak argument without a collection of red herrings in mind. As your intellect begins to fail, your supply of them will give you momentum. Here is an example: A newlywed couple is purchasing their first car. While in the car lot, the salesman presents to them a used (but expensive) car. The husband notices a few large scratches near the rear of the automobile, indicating that the car has possibly been in an accident. The salesman has no choice but to use a red herring: My friend, what you should be looking at is its interior; leather seats, air conditioning all around and plenty of head room! Not only that, but a family of five will fit perfectly which is important if you intend to start a family. This is quite possibly the best deal in the lot! The wife is convinced, and the husband decides to give in to the salesmans red herring. The straw man in logic is used when you are unable to argue against your opponent. The straw man is, in short, an intentional misunderstanding of your opponent's position, created by you for the purpose of making his views look absurd. Traditionally, the straw man is created as an overstatement of an opponent's position. Many views are easier to argue against if they are taken to extremes. Experts on the subject of arguing use a different type of straw man; that which is made of skin and bone. By deliberately targeting an extreme supporter of the opponent, and choosing to argue with him instead of the main opposition, you use the straw man strategy to its full potential. In addition, you should construct and knock down your straw man after your opponent has uttered his last argument. If your opponent is absent or has finished speaking, there will be no one to deny that the straw man is actually the opponent you were facing rather than a dummy constructed to take the fall. One example is the coverage which the movement Occupy Wall Street has received by both sides of the political spectrum, but especially those on the right. By finding a few of the most extreme protestors, collecting their most absurd comments and then setting them up as if they represent the entire movement, some news reporters have made the movement look absurd in many peoples eyes. However, you would be wise not to fall for the straw man strategy. Within a large group of people there are always a few extremists; keep in mind that these extremists usually do not speak for the majority of the group.

The Art of Arguing

The next fallacy I would like to present is the act of poisoning the well. The most attractive feature of this method is that the opposition is discredited before they even attempt to state their opinion. The fallacy often consists in making rude remarks about anyone who might disagree with a certain position. When someone tries to argue, he only shows that the unpleasant attributes apply to him. It is more clever than simple abuse because it invites the victim to insult himself. In doing so, it discourages opposition. Skillful use of well-poisoning should employ the following characteristics: (1) The poison should spark ridicule from the audience towards your opponent and (2) it should act as a shield against anyone tempted to argue with you. Well-poisoning is recommended whenever your claim might not survive excessive ridicule. It is also useful for dealing with an opponent whose argument is valid. Here is a common example of poisoning the well: say you are at a conference at a local high school. This particular school is infamous for its students drug habits. One mother stands up and offers the following argument, Teachers, janitors, principals and all other school employees should have the right to search students back packs for drugs and alcohol. Anyone who disagrees with that clearly does not care about the future of our children nor that of our town. No one wants to be labeled as someone who doesnt care about their children, so anyone who chooses to support a students right to privacy would immediately be branded a bad parent. The genetic fallacy is built entirely on the source of an argument. People are less open to views which stem from those they detest, regardless of the actual views. The genetic fallacy makes the mistake of indicating that the source of an argument affects its validity. Terrible people sometimes utter truthful statements, while very goodhearted people are not immune from absurd statements. The genetic fallacy is often seen in connection with the alleged views of universally detested figures such as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Here is yet another example: one woman is opposed to her sister-in-laws opinion that stem-cell research should become completely legal. This woman could offer this simple argument: Tinkering with genes is fascist talk. That's what Hitler tried to do. Lets face it: no one wants to be compared to Adolf Hitler! The final fallacy I will explain is abusive analogy. The opponent or his behavior is compared with something which will elicit an unfavorable response toward him from others. The analogy may even be a valid one, from the point of view of the comparison being made. This makes it more effective, but no less fallacious, since the purpose is to introduce additional, unarguable, material to influence a judgment. The fallacy is a subtle one because it relies on the associations which the audience makes from the picture presented. Its perpetrator need not say anything which is untrue; he can rely on the associations made by the hearer to fill in the abuse. While politicians delight in both abuse and analogies, there are surprisingly few good uses of the abusive analogy from that domain. A good analogy should have an element of truth in its comparison, and invite abuse by its other associations. Abusive analogies take composition. If you go forth without preparation, you will find yourself drawing from an overused collection of comparisons. A carefully composed piece of abusive comparison, however, could make a well-argued case seem ridiculous: 'your speech was more senseless and redundant than a broken record'.