How to Win Every Argument ( PDFDrive )

88 Hominem ( a b u s i v e ) , argume If you cannot attack the argume insult itself is not fallacious, it is undermine an opponent's argu audience to give it less weight th the famous argumentum ad hom Dr Green argues very plausibly is that he is the same Dr Green favour of both euthanasia and (Unless his argument is that fluor infants more effectively, it is ha arguments for or against fluoride. The fallacy here, as with most fa argument is not treated on its me fall by their own qualities. Stric arguer do not come into it. Even not always in error. It is only beca that a good and sensible argum stupid source that the ad homine Now I come to Professor Robi mating the two colleges. Far b referring to the Professor's con but we have to ask ourselves... (Note the ritual denial. It is usu abusive, 'I don't wish to be catty, There are many forms of this f they are identified and named as demands a bold attempt to make

How to Win Every Argument entum ad ent, attack the arguer. While an if made in a way calculated to ument, and to encourage an han it merits. When this is done, minem abusive is committed. y for fluoridation. What he does not tell us n who ten years ago published articles in d infanticide. ride will kill off the old people and ard to see how this bears on the .) allacies of relevance, is that the erit. Arguments should stand or ctly speaking, the merits of the n the public relations industry is ause we are reluctant to suppose ment can come from a bad and em abusive has any effect. inson's argument in favour of amalga- be it from me to reopen old wounds by nviction three years ago for drunk driving . ually the signal for an ad hominem , but - miaow.') fallacy, some so specialized that s separate fallacies. Effective use e the abuse appear to have some

Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad bearing on the issue under con attacks to cast doubt on the arg sible avenue. Lawyers when cross-examinin line between 'establishing the simple ad hominem abusive to d the use of witnesses on the cha venture over the line into the te The political arena is fertile t grow like weeds and others like The ad hominem abusive is one question-time. / would remind the House that unemployment and inflation dou fast as prices went up. And he ha future of the mining industry. (No comment, which is what he form.) Some of the poor quality of p at the door of the press. So long nalists prepared to praise an ord 'splendid riposte' there will be p midnight hours to compose such a dead sheep'. They perform to The rules to remember when the hostile material should, wh with apparent reluctance, and it question of whether your oppo such a worthy and serious audie

89 nsideration. The use of personal guer's judgement gives one pos- ng hostile witnesses tread a fine character of a witness' and a discredit the testimony. Similarly, aracter of the accused can often erritory of the fallacy. territory in which some fallacies e carefully cultivated blossoms. e of the staples of parliamentary when my questioner was in office ubled, and wages went down almost as as the temerity to ask me about the is saying in a more circumlocutious parliamentary debate can be laid g as there are sycophantic jour- dinary ad hominem abusive as a politicians labouring through the h gems as 'like being savaged by their audience. committing this fallacy are that herever possible, be introduced should be made to bear on the onent deserves consideration by ence as you are both addressing.

90 It is with a heavy heart that I rele letters. I ask you whether this cou policy toward the new suspension with an 11 -year-old girl flouts e behaviour which we, as a council, (Look out below.) Hominem (circumstantial) In the argumentum ad hominem the special circumstances of th arguing. Instead of trying to prov the evidence, its acceptance is ur interests of those appealed to. You can't accept the legitimacy of and Christ drove the money-lende (This is not a general argument. I a Jew, for example. The listener Christian convictions.) In a similar way people can be of their circumstances as memb supports it. In this version of th bringing the particular position urged as a generally accepted t indeed convince that specific aud the Tightness or wrongness of w falsity of a statement.

How to Win Every Argument ease copies of these photographs and uncil can be seen to be influenced in its n bridge by a man whose behaviour every standard of public and private , have a sacred duty to uphold. , argumentum ad m circumstantial, the appeal is to he person with whom one is ve the contention true or false on rged because of the position and f lending for profit. You are a Christian, ers from the temple. It might not do much for a Hindu or is invited to assent because of his e asked to accept a view because bers of the political party which he fallacy the error comes in by n of the audience into what is truth. While such tactics might dience, they would not establish what is urged, nor the truth or

Hominem (circumstantial), argumentu No one in this university audienc money to subsidize services, oth a subsidized place. (Actually, it is other state hando A variant of the fallacy dism senting only their special circu company executive can reflec when he voices an opinion on the first place, the executive m which differ from those of his there is nothing to say that the rect one, self-interested though this version by the wanton dism as much as by bringing in irr cumstances of the audience. E opponent thinks as he does, i wrong. ('As an opera-lover, you need more subsidy for the arts The appeal to special circu addressed to specialist audie 'building a constituency' refer adding together enough intere port on account of their spe unscrupulous, politician might argument not to the general g circumstances of public-sector recipients, ethnic minorities an tics. The Tightness or wrongne come into it if enough special c Both versions of the argume can be used to advantage. You with respect to circumstance

um ad 91 ce can be opposed to handing out state herwise you would not be here, occupying outs which students oppose.) misses a person's views as repre- umstances. It assumes that an oil ct only his corporation's interest the future of energy supplies. In may well have independent views s company. In the second place, e corporation view is not the cor- h it may be. The fallacy arises in missal of possibly relevant material relevant matters such as the cir- Even if it can be shown why an it still does not show him to be u will be the first to agree that we s.') umstances occurs in arguments ences. The American expression rs quite often to the process of est groups, all of which give sup- ecial circumstances. An adept, if build a power-base by directing good of society but to the special employees, trade unions, welfare nd groups involved in sexual poli- ess of the programme need not circumstances can be appealed to. entum ad hominem circumstantial u should employ the first version es which are broad enough to

92 include fairly large audiences. ('Yo class, will appreciate . . . ' ) Espec nominal membership of the Chris to think of themselves as Christian obligations which serious Christia you appeal to them that as Chri your views, they will be forced acquiescence you could never ha The second version is spectac evidence against you. An expert such his views represent only his involved. Thus, when the town-p town-planning; when the oil com sense you have uttered on energ exposes your cockeyed views abo in each case and observe: 'Well he Ignorantiam, argumentum a Socrates was thought by the oracl he alone knew how ignorant he ance might have been good at k forms a poor basis for deduction tiam is committed when we use something in order to infer that i Ghosts exist all right. Research lions of pounds attempting to p succeeded. (The same could probably be sai spects for world peace.)

How to Win Every Argument ou, as members of the working cially useful to you will be the stian Church. Many people like ns, although they do not like the anity would impose. Thus when istians they can hardly oppose into a reluctant and resentful ave gained otherwise. cular in the rejection of expert is someone in the field, and as s circumstances as one who is planner refutes your claims on mpany expert shows what non- gy; and when the businessman out business, you smile sweetly e would say that, wouldn't he?' ad le to be the wisest man because was. The knowledge of ignor- keeping Socrates modest, but it n. The argumentum ad ignoran- e our lack of knowledge about its opposite is the case. h teams have spent many years and mil- prove that they don't; and they have never aid of Aladdin's lamp and the pro-

Ignorantiam, argumentent ad The positive version of ad ignor been disproved must happen. form which claims that what ha Talk of extraterrestrial life-form because every single attempt to utterly. (Also true of the Yeti, Bigfoot, t integrity.) In both versions of the fallacy called upon to supply support f own state of knowledge does n falsity of that statement. The fa of irrelevant material, in the sha argument which is about someth to prove that something exists which hides coyly in the deep o a mountain wilderness, or in the Cygni. You practically have to m recorded evidence would be re To establish non-existence is look at the whole universe simul quarry is not lurking in any part rarely accomplished, and thus thickly populated with ad ignora our imagination. Kid, I've flown from one side of t strange stuff, but I've never see there's one all-powerful force co Of course there are cases in w influence our judgement; they o

93 rantiam asserts that what has not There is, in addition, a negative as not been proved cannot occur. ms is nonsense. We know there are none o establish their existence has failed the Loch Ness monster and editorial y, the appeal is to ignorance. It is for an assertion, even though our not normally bear on the truth or allacy consists of the intervention ape of our own ignorance, into an hing else. It is notoriously difficult s, especially if it is a shy creature of a Scottish loch, on the slopes of e mists of the third planet of 6 1 - meet one. Even then, a wealth of equired to convince others. s even more difficult. You have to ltaneously to make sure that your t of it. Not surprisingly, this feat is leaves us with boundless spaces antiams and the other products of the galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of en anything that could make me believe ontrolling everything. which our lack of knowledge does occur where we would expect to

94 have that knowledge if the thing reject a report that Camden To whole by a slime monster if ther newspapers, no eyewitness acco celebrations, or any of the ev accompany such an event. The ad ignorantiam forms the the otherwise naked beliefs of thos credence to extraordinary things. shelters a widespread popular be demonic possession, magic pyram innocence of tobacco. (Television None of the surveys has ever man The argumentum ad ignorantia not follow received opinion. You these bizarre notions by appealing contrary. Only slight difficulty is oc evidence in many cases to prov evidence, deploying further ad ign has ever proved the evidence to b be able to sustain a preconceived v sense and experience. When you a letters 'ad ign.' after those deno After all, no one can prove that y Ignoratio elenchi Ignoratio elenchi is one of the old first identified by Aristotle. When s proving one thing, but succeed instead, he commits ignoratio ele the point, but directly to a differe

How to Win Every Argument g were true. One would rightly own Hall had been swallowed re were no reports of it in the ounts on television, no street vidence we would expect to e semblance of a cloak to cover se who are predisposed to give . Under its comforting warmth elief in telepathy, poltergeists, mids, Bermuda triangles and the n violence doesn't do any harm. naged to prove that it does.') am is useful if your own views do u can persuade others to share g to the lack of evidence to the ccasioned by the abundance of ve you wrong: you reject the norantiams to show that no one be reliable. In this way you will view of things in the teeth of all are expert at it, you can add the oting your degree in sociology. you shouldn't. dest fallacies known to us, being someone believes himself to be ds in proving something else enchi. He not only argues beside ent conclusion.

Ignoratlo elenchl / shall oppose this measure proving once again the valu (Proving the value of educatio permitting earlier leaving. Perha schooling, to see the difference. The thesis which is proved is arguer sought to prove, which is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. T that the one conclusion equates make separate points. The argu first conclusion are omitted, an levant conclusion are brought i How could my client have or beyond a shadow of doubt that time. (Well done. Does that show h arrange it by telephone?) Ignoratio elenchi has a subtle that a conclusion is validly prov one. Anyone who concentrates that its soundness diverts his at conclusion. Is gambling a worthwhile occup as hard as anyone else, but hard quite apart from the time spent (OK, it's hard work. Now, is it w Ignoratio elenchi makes its appearance wherever someone

95 to permit people to leave school earlier by ue of education. on does not prove the case against aps it takes education, as opposed to e.) not relevant to the one which the is why this is sometimes known as The fallacy consists of supposing s with the other, when in fact they uments which would support the nd those which support the irre- in instead. rdered the murder? I have proved he was not even in the country at the he didn't order it before he left, or e appeal. Its strength lies in the fact ved, even though it is the wrong s on the argument may well find ttention away from the irrelevant pation? Believe me, we not only work der. It takes hours of study every day, t doing it. worthwhile?) s brief, but usually successful, e accused of doing something he

96 did do is quite prepared to deny feature of all points where journa The use of the fallacy has an almo is under the steady beam of stu mination of flash cameras in th enacted. The eager pressmen so with one thing, and he, with equ not done another. 'Isn't it true, Minister, that you poor to fall in real terms?' 'What we have done is to in childless dependent females, widows with two children, the opponents ever managed in a In the more relaxed atmosph great man will often brazen i announcing his ignoratio elenchi Well, John, that's not really th (And you can bet that this certai Obviously you can use the fall work. Your audience will be so im you can prove you have not do wander away from those you h detailed your proofs, the less remembering what it was you we You can also use it in an atta things except the ones that matte can be demonstrated about nucle refined white sugar which are not

How to Win Every Argument y something else. It is a central alistic and political circles touch. ost ritual quality to it. Whether it udio lights, or the staccato illu- he streets, the little tableau is olemnly charge the great man ual solemnity, shows that he has u have allowed the living standards of the ncrease by 3.7 per cent the allowance to and by 3.9 per cent the allowance to ese increases both being larger than our single year of their term of office. ' here of a studio interview, the it out, with royal trumpeters i: he point, is it? What we have done is to... inly isn't the point.) lacy for close-quarters defensive mpressed by all the things which one, that their attention might have. The more laborious and chance there is of anyone ere actually accused of. acking role, proving all kinds of er. There are many things which ear power, hunting animals and t relevant to the central topic of

Illicit process whether others should be banne approve of. Jogging in public should be b increase the risks to health, r (Even if it were true, would it b jogging? It sounds as though th jogger's health, but the speaker Illicit process There is a rule about arguments conclusion refers to the whole pointing to that conclusion mu whole class. We cannot reach agents', for example, unless w which applies to all of them. T are guilty of this or that prac conclusions about all of them. A are said to commit the fallacy o All tax-collectors are civil serv civil servants are bullies. (Too harsh. There may be som overbearing. The fallacy is that conclusion, but the premise only of them.) The argument which uses il because it makes unsupported talk only about some of a class, first time the rest of that class.

97 ed from doing things you do not banned. There are studies which show it ca rather than decrease them. be an argument for banning public he major adverse effect is not on the r's conscience.) which tells us that if a term in the e of its class, then the evidence ust also have told us about the h a conclusion about 'all estate we start with some knowledge To know that some estate agents ctice will not justify us reaching Arguments which break this rule of illicit process. vants, and all tax-collectors are bullies, so a me somewhere who are just a little t we refer to all civil servants in the y tells us that tax-collectors are some llicit process has to be fallacious d claims. Although the premises the conclusion introduces for the In other words, we try to reach

98 conclusions about things we have fallacy by doing so. There is another version of illi spot: All cyclists are economical peop farmers are economical people. (This appears to fit the observed fac just as easily have said 'All cyclists distinct impression that big fat farm cars for ever.) The source of the fallacy in this ex us that cyclists are some of the cla conclusion, on the other hand, te not a single farmer in it. Again, th These terms which cover the w 'distributed terms', and there is versal, which talk about 'all' or 'no negatives, which tell us what is n predicates. In the example above, is distributed in the conclusion, negative statement. In the premis being neither the subject of a un negative. It sounds complicated, You will soon be seeing which co class without any information to j totally, you should call the fallacy i the conclusion is unjustifiably dist the predicate of the conclusion is To use illicit process requires a should deploy it in support of co but have the minor technical dra

How to Win Every Argument e no evidence on, and commit a icit process which is harder to ple, and no farmers are cyclists, so no . acts, but there is a fallacy. We could s are mortals'. This would give the mers would be driving their big fat xample is that the premise tells ass of economical people. The ells us that the entire class has he fallacy is illicit process. whole of their class are called a rule for finding them. Uni- one', have distributed subjects; not the case, have distributed , the term 'economical people' since it is the predicate of a se, however, it is undistributed, niversal nor the predicate of a but the rule makes it simple. onclusions try to cover all of a justify it. To dazzle your friends illicit minor when the subject of tributed, and illicit major when s so treated. a good deal of homework. You onclusions which look plausible awback that you cannot prove

Irrelevant humour them. Your expertise at illicit proc arguments based on what som smoothly into conclusions abou Some Australians are pleasa pleasant fellows, so some Aus (Who knows? It may even be true prove it.) Irrelevant humour The fallacy of irrelevant humo material irrelevant to the subjec order to divert attention away fr My opponent's position remin (Which will not remind the audie While humour entertains and enl The fallacy does not lie in the u ment to direct attention away fro matter in hand. A joke might w win an argument. A member of parliament, Th motion to change the name o that mass is a Catholic festiva was interrupted by a member to be called 'Thotide Tidey-Ti The hustings heckler is the gr warblings accompany parliame

99 cess will enable you to construct me of the class do, and slide ut all of them. ant fellows, and some con-men are not stralians are not conmen. e; but it takes a lot more than this to our is committed when jocular ct under review is introduced in rom the argument. nds me of a story... ence of the argument.) nlivens discussion, it also distracts. use of humour but in its employ- om the rights and wrongs of the win an audience, but it does not homas Massey-Massey, was introducing a of Christmas to Christ-tide, on the grounds al, inappropriate to a Protestant country. H r opposite who asked him how he would lik idey'. The bill was forgotten in the uproar reat exponent of this fallacy. His entary election meetings, often

100 drowning out any reasoned argu that they are a lot more interesti intellectual level. A few of them book of quotations as 'anonymo interjection has prompted an eve date. Lloyd George, Winston C showed adroitness at turning a d user. QUESTIONER: What do you know pig? NANCY ASTOR: Why don't you ta Often cited as a classic of irre Bishop Wilberforce when debat Huxley. Pouring scorn on evolutio You claim descent from a mo grandmother's side? (Huxley's reply is also considered t shame in being descended from a would be ashamed to have as a learning sought to obscure by me to prejudice...) The problem for the user of rat is as difficult to refute as a sn entertainment more than the arg sect would regularly invite his a quotation which conflicted wit members of the audience oblige always reply:

How to Win Every Argument ument for the very good reason ing and quite often of a higher achieve the immortality of the ous heckler', especially if their en better reply from the candi- Churchill and Harold Wilson all diversionary joke back upon its w about agriculture? How many toes has a ake off your shoes and count them? elevant humour is the joke by ting evolution against Thomas on, the bishop asked Huxley: onkey; was it on your grandfather's or to be a classic put-down. He saw no a monkey, but described the man he an ancestor; a man who despite his eans of aimless rhetoric and appeals tional argument is that a guffaw neer. The audience enjoys the gument. A speaker for a religious audience to supply any biblical th his view of things. When ed, as they often did, he would

Lapident, argumentum ad That sounds more like Guine (The volunteer was invariably di Those who set out upon the t a knapsack full of custom-buil audience in times of need. At t washing over your victim slightly it gives you time to think. The ability to produce irrelev moment is a product of wit and the debating chamber of a univ think on your feet. The joke ne delivered with style. I once saw a point about sales to authoritarian carry nuclear weapons. He was suggested that wheelbarrows co An undergraduate in the pro crimes and misdemeanours took by facing his audience solemnly / wish to accept censure, and who also thinks I've been a (Collapse, amid uproar, of prose Lapidem, argumentum ad Bishop Berkeley expressed the separately from the perception Johnson that this was an idea doctor's response was to kick rebounded. 'I refute it thus', refuting it as ignoring it, becaus

101 esses talking than Genesis. iscomfited by the gale of laughter.) trail of public debate should carry lt jokes ready to toss before an the very least, the wave of mirth y lowers his authority, even while vant humour on the spur of the d experience. Many years spent in versity will sharpen your ability to eed not even be a clever one if a speaker making a perfectly valid n states of airplanes which could s floored by an interjection which ould do the same. ocess of being censured for high k all of the force out of the attack y and saying: d to couple with it the name of my mother, very naughty boy. ecution case.) view that matter does not exist n of it. When Boswell told Dr impossible to refute, the good against a stone so that his foot he said. He was not so much se the evidence for the existence

102 of the stone, including the sight, it, is all perceived by the senses. Dr Johnson's treatment has g mentum ad lapidem, the appea ignoring the argument altogethe claim. He's a friend of mine. I won't hea (Top marks for loyalty; none for k An argument or piece of e because it fails to conform to an might like to toss out material wh things, it is a fallacy to suppose th By refusing to admit material whi conclusion, we proceed in ignora as a source of bliss than of correc The argumentum ad lapidem after Dr Johnson's use of it, for it reasoned and balanced view on example, came out as: We know our will is free, and ther (It does tend to finish an argumen Jeremy Bentham described al sense, and talk of inalienable natu So much for the American Decla There are always plenty of ston has no footing. Wherever a belie ents can use the ad lapidem.

How to Win Every Argument sound and feel of a kick against given us the name of the argu- al to the stone. It consists of er, refusing to discuss its central ar a word spoken against him. knowledge.) evidence cannot be dismissed n existing opinion. Much as we hich offends our ordered view of hat we can do so without cost. ich may be relevant to a sound ance. Ignorance is more reliable ctness. m is most appropriately named it was one of his favourites. His n the freedom of the will, for re's an end on't. nt, as it is meant to.) ll talk of natural rights as non- ural rights as 'nonsense on stilts'. aration of Independence. nes to kick in fields where proof ef is indemonstrable, its adher-

Lapident, argumentum ad Reason is no guide; you mu (This is not terribly useful to out comforting though it may be to This fallacy occurs in a universit suppose. It is often argued q circles that certain books sho because they propagate error shouted down because their a falsehoods, and do not need t dent unions actually make a po allow a platform on campus for can even include members of country. A charming version of the f Herbert Marcuse. Now forgotte of student radicals in the 196 made the interesting point th because it permits the propa recognize error in order to stop tell us. When you yourself employ with a total assurance which su the offending fact or argumen the judge who once convicte evidence', you should make it reason. Your opponent, by goin and every canon of decency, unworthy of discussion. Liberty of expression is one t ('Licence' means liberty you do

103 ust open your heart... and you will know. tsiders looking for the truth of a thing, o those who know.) ty setting far more than one might quite seriously in quasi-academic ould not be allowed on campus r. Speakers are quite frequently audience know they are speaking to hear the argument. Some stu- olicy of the ad lapidem, refusing to r known error - a category which f the elected government of the fallacy emerged from the pen of en, although he was a high priest 60s, his Critique of Pure Tolerance that tolerance can be repressive agation of error. How could we p it? Easy. Guess who was going to the ad lapidem, you must do so uggests that the person who raised nt is totally beyond the pale. Like ed a jury for 'going against plain clear that he is going against all ng beyond every received opinion has rendered his opinion totally thing; but this is licence! on't approve of.)

104 Where you have control of even subtle: 'I don't care what time it i Lazarutn, argumentant ad The poor may indeed be blessed right. It is a fallacy to suppose that they must be sounder or more virt argumentum ad Lazarum, after th that the poverty of the arguer en making. The guru has nothing to gain by lyin the nuts that he lives on. (And the ones that he teaches.) Poverty does not contribute to t any more than riches do. The falla to the person instead of to the c putting forward. It may well be th the temptations of affluence, but are less distracted by disease, hung temptations to escape them. Even eschews wealth is not acting f remember that there are other way power is delightful', we are told, lutely delightful.' Although we should not take a the arguer, the ad Lazarum is deep We tend to suppose that the po error, having less opportunity, fu

How to Win Every Argument nts, you can afford to be less is. Get to bed this minute.' d; but they are not necessarily t because someone is poor that tuous than one who is rich. The he poor man, Lazarus, takes it nhances the case he or she is ng or fooling anyone; all he has are the soundness of an argument, acy consists of giving attention contentions which he or she is hat the poor are less exposed to it may equally be that the rich ger and degrading toil, and the n if we take it that a person who for material gain, we should ys of achieving satisfaction. 'All 'and absolute power is abso- account of the circumstances of ply engrained into our thinking. oor have less opportunities for ull stop. The literature of our

Lazarum, argumentum ad culture compensates them for t of wisdom and virtue, sometim With her clogs and shawl sh (It could just have been malnu The poor are probably more acquiring real education, health than to want the phantoms wi imaginations of detached obse The politician who astutely stituents are poor will often go t similar poverty, thereby hop limousine is left at the frontie changes down to the car and c self-same electors, did he but kn better than themselves, and res with the flash car and the swa argumentum ad Lazarum is a fa do. The real poor have no time The best view I ever heard o woodcutter... (Who was probably smart eno woodcutters...) Woodcutters, like aged peas should be lined up in orderly arguments. A few simple fisher a score or two of wise old wash lined by experience, should non and acceptance of life. The view course, gained from sources su

105 their poverty with extra measures mes of beauty. he stood out from the others. utrition, though.) e likely to prefer the means of h and respite from an arduous life ished on them in the rose-tinted ervers. recognizes that most of his con- to extraordinary lengths to feign a ping to command respect. His er with his well-cut suit, as he clothes of his constituents. Those now it, probably regard him as no serve their admiration for the guy anky outfit. The point is that the allacy which appeals to the well-to- e for it. on this was told to me by a simple, hones ough not to depend on the views of sants with weatherbeaten faces, y squadrons in support of your rmen should act as outriders, with herwomen in reserve. Their faces, netheless reflect an inner placidity ws which you put forward were, of uch as these.

106 He puffed reflectively on his pip quiet eyes. He told me that, a always reckoned that deficit s production by priming demand (If he's so sincere, how can he be Loaded words It is possible to influence the out deliberate use of prejudiced term calculated to conjure up an attitu hostile than the unadorned facts w that of loaded words. HITLER SUMMONS WAR LORDS M.DALADIER CONSULTS DEFEN (The two headlines tell us the sam many and France had seen the hea many these are 'war lords', but in The German leader is simply 'Hitler his men imperiously. Daladier, how good democrat, 'consults'.) Near synonyms carry subtle nu be used to influence attitudes to them. The fallacy derives from the not part of the argument. They achieve more effect than could th nuances and the response to them establishing the truth or falsehoo guage abounds with ways of put description in order to elicit a resp

How to Win Every Argument pe, then looked at me with those strangely although poor himself and honest, he had spending by government could stimulate d, and similarly... wrong?) tcome of a judgement by the ms. When the words used are ude more favourable or more would elicit, the fallacy used is S! NCE CHIEFS me thing: that the leaders of Ger- eads of their armed forces. In Ger- n France they are 'defence chiefs'. r', without title, and he summons wever, is a monsieur, and being a uances of meaning which can o the statement which bears e fact that these attitudes are were conjured up illicitly to he argument alone. The extra m are both strictly irrelevant to od of what is being said. Lan- tting our own attitudes into a ponse from others. People may

Loaded words be forgetful or negligent; they they may be confident or arro subjective: they depend for thei observer and on how he or sh argument requires a conscious terms which are reasonably neu Once again Britain has been (Or maintaining friendly relatio how 'found' implies that they w The judge's bench, as he dire loaded words to roam on. En oversight, gives the jury the righ judge will help to fill this gap words to help the unfortunates Are we to believe the word that of a man whose reputat (If you had thought of doing s change your mind.) There is a series of verb con different loading a speaker will the person he speaks to, or an firm; you are stubborn; he is a p Descriptions of contests can choice of terms, rather than by Scotland stole a goal in the rewarded in the second half w

107 may be steadfast or unyielding; ogant. Many of these terms are ir accuracy on the feelings of the he interprets the situation. A fair effort to put forward the case in utral. n found sucking up to dictatorships. ons with strong governments. Note were discovered in a guilty secret.) ects the jury, is good territory for nglish law, through a tiresome ht to decide the verdict. Many a in legal procedure by choosing in their deliberations. of this snivelling, self-confessed pervert, tion is a byword for honour and integrity? so, this is a good point at which to njugations which brings out the apply to words describing him, n absent third party. Thus: 'I am pig-headed fool.' n invite us to take sides by the the events they report. first half, but England's efforts were we when...

108 (Guess which side of the border What goes for the sports section page. The public can distinguish Labou (They can certainly distinguish wh Public affairs programmes on connoisseur of loaded words. The interests. They want to present m prejudices; their authority require objectivity and balance. While satisfaction comes in spotting th more insidious level. Which side h which has 'freedom-fighters?' W ment and which a regime? When you are in the situation you will find loaded words mo shows the bleak outlook of one a the rosy setting which results from never know that you could have way round. Would you rather believe the ca respected columnist, or the incohe Are you not moved by the just case thousands of concerned demonstra I'm not going to be taken in by the When describing actions, rem such a way that even to observe

How to Win Every Argument the reporter comes from?) n applies even more to the leader ur bribes from Tory pledges. hose side the writer is on.) television are great fun for the ere is an unfortunate conflict of material to make you share their es at least some semblance of blatant bias does occur, the he loaded words at a slightly has 'terrorists', for example, and Which countries have a govern- n of trying to persuade people, ost useful. Your verbal picture alternative, and contrasts it with m the other. Your listeners need done it just as easily the other areful words of an internationally erent ramblings of a well-known hack? e which is even now being voiced by ators outside this very building? e bleatings of a mob. member to load your words in ers who know nothing of the

Mlsericordiam, argumentum ad facts, there will be an obvious d investments and the reckless s modest perquisites to which you embezzlement in which they h testimony should contrast well Miserkordiam, argumen While pity is an admirable huma best basis for argument. When soned discourse to support a p the argumentum ad misericord In asking yourself if this man mean for him to be locked u turned into an outcast from (The question is whether he is g do to him.) When we are called upon to s be weighing up the evidence arrive at the truth. The introduc argument. While it might reas should not influence our judge ious parties of the truth or fals bear on that truth or falsehood. or to the South Seas for a holida ad misericordiam is committed tlement of questions of truth an Can we continue to afford J happen if we don't. Imagine

109 distinction between your prudent spending of others, between the u were entitled and the wholesale have engaged. Your dispassionate with their frenzied diatribe. ntum ad an quality, it does not provide the n we turn to pity instead of rea- particular contention, we commit diam. is to be convicted, ask yourself what it will up in prison, deprived of his liberty, and humanity. guilty or not, not what conviction will settle questions of fact, we should on each side and attempting to ction of pity does nothing for the sonably influence our actions, it ement. The consequences to var- sehood of a statement does not . Whether a man is sent to prison ay does not alter the fact itself. An d if pity is appealed to in the set- nd falsehood. Jeeves as our groundsman? Look what wil e the state of his wife and his children wit

110 Christmas coming up and the ask instead, 'can we afford no (Yes we can. Of course, we might a different thing.) Quite apart from its use in c respecting defence lawyer will ve - the ad misericordiam pokes its facts have consequences. No one of an individual to influence our fact as 2 + 2 = 4, but where ther tempted to allow our pity to give Hearts and flowers are a pre question of simple fact can be se the effect it might have on the sic and the lame. If we decide that foreign aid is standards, then we are conde life of degrading poverty, squa (If foreign aid is ineffective, the fa sequences. Maybe we should do The appeal of the ad miserico pity should have a place in guidin fallacy is that it has no place in o falsehood. When it steps from on changes place with it. Its allure is hard to resist. The Carol is one giant argumentum ad making an honest living, assailed appeal to pity. Bob Cratchit com scribe, and is perfectly free to s

How to Wîn Every Argument cold snows of winter about to descend. I ot to employ Jeeves?' decide to afford him, which is quite courts of law - where no self- enture without his handkerchief head into any argument where e would allow the possible fate conviction about so obvious a re is less certainty we might be e the benefit of the doubt. erequisite of public policy. No ettled without consideration of ck, the old, the feeble, the blind s ineffective, and does not raise living emning people in the poorer countries to a alor and disease. act condemns them to these con- something else about it.) ordiam is in our recognition that ng our actions. The point of the our determination of truth and ne territory to the other, reason e whole of Dickens' A Christmas d misericordiam. Here is Scrooge, d (along with the reader) by the mmands a skill as a clerk and seek employment elsewhere at

Nauseam, argumentum ad market rates if he is dissatisfied w ghosts rise up to torment his em and the hapless Scrooge is mora quite contrary to economic reali treatment would have been 'Ba You will have a great time under the ad misericordiam. Yo in the fine distinction between fa make those who reach differen things seem like the most hard-h doing so. If you really believe that high wa then all I can say is that you will h of poor families who struggle to f Cod have mercy on your soul! (Even if he does, the audience ment, turn it right back. What ab those poor teenagers, unable to opponent? You can't expect to w opponent is using a howitzer.) Nauseam, argumentum ad Simple repetition of a point of supplying additional evidence o critical faculty. There is a comple thing is more likely to be true if it ad nauseam uses constant repet evidence against a contention, accepted.

111 with what Scrooge offers. But no; mployer with the ad misericordiam, ally compelled to reach a decision ity. A more valid response to this ah! Humbug!' making your opponents squirm our audience is not too interested fact and fiction, so you can easily nt conclusions about the truth of hearted of Victorian landlords for ages keep teenagers from getting jobs, have on your conscience the thousands find the means for life's necessities. May won't. When faced with this treat- bout the suffering and humiliation of find work because of your heartless win with duelling pistols when your f view does nothing by way of or support. Yet it can erode the etely mistaken supposition that a t is often heard. The argumentum tition, often in the face of massive , to make it more likely to be

112 Just the place for a Snark! I hav is true. (Whereas in fact if someone repea because he has nothing else to sa The point is that repetition add done in an attempt to persuade down their resistance, or by dece objections have somehow been nothing, the extra versions are i and fallaciously appeal to psych reason. 'Please sir, it wasn't me!' 'But this is your catapult, Smith 'Please sir, it wasn't me!' 'And witnesses saw you pick u 'Please sir, it wasn't me!' (This could go on indefinitely, baculum cuts it short. We can al done his case more good if he had say. Would we spot it if he simply by the workers', however?) Utterly discredited political cre for other than intellectual reaso nauseam fallacy. If an economic s and gives ordinary people access the prerogative of the rich, it is qu that this is exploitation. Fortunate ad nauseam effect means that the over and over again without argu some people will fall for it.

How to Win Every Argument ve said it thrice; what I tell you three times eats the same thing three times it is ay.) ds nothing at all to the logic. It is an audience, either by wearing eiving them into supposing that n dealt with. Since they add irrelevant to the consideration, hological factors rather than to h Minor. ' up the stone. ' unless the heavy hand of an ad ll spot that Smith Minor would have d been able to find anything else to y kept saying 'Socialism means rule edos, which adherents cling to ons, are supported by the ad system brings general prosperity to the things which were once uite difficult to make out a case ely, one does not have to. The e charge can simply be repeated gument or evidence. Eventually,