How to Win Every Argument ( PDFDrive )

138 'You never remember my birth 'Did I ever tell you what beau You should never set out upo pocketful of red herrings to susta As your intellectual energies beg will give you breathing space. If experts you should select your re known interests of your audienc aroma; and your red herrings s mind. As you toss them out as unable to resist their favourite ba most difficult situations by skilfully arguer's bad back, or even his peration you can bring up his pe Refuting the example Examples are often adduced in s attention is focused on showing but leaving the central thesis unc as 'refuting the example'. 'Teenagers are very bad-mann nearly knocked me over in the apologize. ' 'You're wrong. Simon is no lo (None of which knocks over example.) While an example can illustra the discrediting of it does not disc

How to Win Every Argument hday.' utiful eyes you have?' on a weak argument without a ain you through the course of it. gin to fail, your supply of them you aspire to the ranks of the ed herrings on the basis of the ce. Every pack has its favourite should be chosen with that in s needed, the audience will be ait. You can gain respite in the y introducing the subject of the summer holidays. In real des- et cat. support of an argument. When the example to be a false one, challenged, the fallacy is known nered these days. That boy from next door e street yesterday, and didn't even stay to onger a teenager.' the original assertion, only one ate and reinforce an argument, credit the argument itself. There

Refuting the example may be many other instances which are genuine cases. There is a fine distinction betw of casting doubt on an opponen criticism on the example instea ports. If the rejection of the cent bad example was used to supp / can show that there is no truth cruel to animals. In the case of th we were not told was that a post had died of natural causes. So mu (The argument has less life in it A case of this fallacy occurred featured a poster showing a hap that life was better with them extraordinary amount of time an who appeared in the photogra that his was not a happy marri expended in the belief that the believe the fact once the examp For some reason this fallacy about sport. In support of a ge produces the best strikers', an seems to be the cue for lengthy of the individual concerned. T discussion seems to be that the general statement will be won o You can set up situations for your opponents with a demand ticism as you respond to their cl them into bringing forward a ca

139 which support the thesis, and ween the quite legitimate activity nt's evidence, and concentrating ad of on the thesis which it sup- tral claim is urged only because a port it, the fallacy is committed. h at all in the allegation that hunting is he Berkshire hunt described to us, what t-mortem showed that this particular fox uch for charges of cruelty. than the fox.) d in a general election. One party ppy family to illustrate the slogan m. Their opponents devoted an nd attention to the actual model aph, and to publicizing the fact iage. The effort was presumably e public would be less likely to ple was refuted. y is very prevalent in discussion eneralized claim, such as 'Spain example will be produced. This and dull evaluation of the merits The assumption throughout the e case for or against the original or lost with that of the example. or using this fallacy by prodding d for examples. Your heavy scep- laims with 'such as?' will prompt ase in point. Immediately they do

140 so, you attack the case, showing valid. The case of a family produc is too low can be attacked wi whether they have a colour tele band spends on beer. Even if you in apparent destruction of the probably widen the talk to a more constitutes poverty, and cast d statement means anything at all. T Reification The fallacy of reification, also calle supposition that words must den admire the redness of a sunset, w ence of the word into supposing t see a red ball, a red table, a red pe fallacy of reification if we suppos present along with the ball, the ta In SKYROS we have extracted the inserted it in a bar of heavenly so (Since the 'blueness' of the summ processed like a material thing.) Turning descriptive qualities i reification. We can also make t abstract nouns are real objects. He realized that he had thrown aw afternoon trying to find it again. (If you think that sounds silly, you justice.)

How to Win Every Argument g how it could not possibly be ced to show that bus drivers' pay ith great merriment by asking evision and how much the hus- cannot undermine the example assertion it supports, you can e general discussion about what doubt on whether the original This is called 'linguistic analysis'. ed hypostatization, consists in the note real things. Because we can we must not be led by the exist- that redness is a thing. When we en and a red hat, we commit the se that a fifth object, redness, is able, the pen and the hat. e blueness of the summer sky and oap. mer sky is not an object, it cannot be into things is only one form of the mistake of supposing that way his future, and spent the rest of the u should watch Plato searching for

Reification Sometimes objects have co arrangement, perhaps. We com these attributes are as real as th It [the Cheshire Cat] vanished qu the tail, and ending with the grin rest of it had gone. (Alice could see it because she ha nobody on the road, while the D somebody.) The fallacy occurs because ou conjure up real existence. We ca exist at all, and we can talk of th might exist in another. 'Rednes the same as 'the sky reddened' activities. Our words are not evid they are devices for talking abo There is a school of philosoph talk about things they must, in make sentences about unicorns they claim that there must actu king of France (with the latter p the former). Yet another school elevates talking about the 'essences' of makes an egg into an egg and n essence of egg. This essence is m the actual egg, for ordinary egg but the idea of an egg goes on. T just silly, is a commanding one. onto things so we do not have communicating in sign languag

141 onsequential attributes, in their mmit reification if we suppose that he objects they depend upon. uite slowly, beginning with the end of n, which remained some time after the ad sharp eyes. After all, she had seen Duchess had difficulty enough seeing ur words have not the power to an talk about things which do not hings in one form which actually ss entered the sky' says roughly ', but the words denote different dence for the existence of things; out what we experience. hers which believes that if we can n a sense, exist. Because we can s and the present king of France, ually be unicorns and a present presumably riding on the back of the fallacy into an art form, by of things. They claim that what nothing else is its 'eggness', or the more real and more durable than gs disappear into quiche lorraine, The obvious objection, that this is . We use words like labels, to tie e to keep pointing at them and ge. Little can be inferred from this

142 except that we have agreed to someone brings out the 'essence you what you really believe in, c 'You claim to support freedom has the essence of slavery. ' 'All right. We'll call it slavery, we mean people voting as the an independent judiciary, etc. (This is an upsetting tactic. The a of slaves being whipped on plan new use describing the Western d Your own use of reification ca that what people say they supp your position. You simply take a them into real entities, and star natures are in line with what you You say that Cod exists, but le talk about tables which have so on, but for pure existence yo and all of the things which exis away everything which exists, see the existence of your God (He'll never spot that existence d The runaway train A runaway train takes you sp unfortunately does not stop. Th

How to Win Every Argument use words in a certain way. If es' behind your words to show change the words. m, but the whole liberal democratic system then. And let it be clear that by \"slavery\" ey wish in elections, having a free press and .' accuser had expected the old image ntations to be carried over into the democracies.) an be directed toward showing port involves them in supporting all of the abstract concepts, turn rt demonstrating that their real u were saying. et us look at this idea of existence. We can existence, chairs which have existence and ou have to take away the tables and chairs st, to be left with existence itself. In taking , you are left with nothing existing, so you is the same as non-existence. doesn't exist. After all, Hegel didn't.) peeding into the distance, but his means that when you reach

The runaway train your required destination you ca to be taken further than you wis committed when an argument u would also support more of it. I point, you need an argument to It might well be true that low 70 mph to 60 mph would sa argument for choosing 60 mph speed-limit to 50 mph would sa would be saved at 40 mph. Th away train is that if saving lives should be set at the level which s In practice the lives at risk for to be measured against what is and to transport goods rapid involve a degree of risk which co actions. In practice we trade o comfort. If the case for making solely on the lives which could additional reasons to stop at 60 his own argument takes him t finally crashes into the buffers w People argue that since, in the country's National Health Servic justification to ban smoking, b nesses. There may be good re argument that the costs of the imposed on others is a runaway argument applies to all behaviou It could be applied to the eating or refined white sugar. The state in order to prevent the health c on others. If this argument is t have to be reasons why the tra

143 annot leave it, but are compelled shed. The runaway-train fallacy is used to support a course of action If you wish to stop at a particular o do so. wering a highway speed-limit from ave lives. That is not a sufficient h, however, because lowering the ave even more lives. And more still he obvious conclusion of this run- s is the sole aim, the speed-limit saves the most, and this is 0 mph. r each proposed speed-limit have s achieved by the ability to travel dly. Most of our daily activities ould be reduced if we limited our off risks against convenience and the speed-limit 60 mph is based d be saved, the arguer will need mph before the runaway train of to 50 mph, then 40 mph, and when it reaches 0 mph. he UK, everyone has to pay for the ce, this gives the state a sufficient because smokers suffer more ill- easons to ban smoking, but the e smoker's behaviour should be y train. Why stop there? The same ur which affects health adversely. g of saturated fats such as butter, e could require people to exercise costs of their laziness from falling to apply only to smoking, there ain stops there.

144 Someone boards a runaway tra about direction that they forget t continue happily on their journey someone calling 'Why stop there The state should subsidize ope mount productions without th (And as the train heads off into marked son et lumière concerts, torial displays. If opera is different The fallacy is often committe general argument for something the argument has any merit, the why it should be limited to that ca it is usually sufficient to point to further down the same line. If g because they give children an 'u vent rich parents from doing the books, or taking them on foreign To lure people on board the r things which most people favour, and orphans and having better-b eral support which such things en proposal you favour which might you carefully ignore the others. In a very specialized use of acceptance of the principles to s and only when that point has b sonable objective also supported You agreed to allow a bingo ha the choice to gamble if they wa machines on every street corne

How to Win Every Argument ain when they are so concerned to attend to distance. They can y until their reverie is broken by e?' era because it would be too expensive to he extra support from public funds. the distance, wait for the stations , civil war re-enactments, and gladia- nt, we need to know why.) ed when someone advances a g he regards as a special case. If e listener immediately wonders ase. To combat a runaway train, o some of the absurd stations good schools are to be banned unfair' advantage, why not pre- e same by buying their children n holidays? runaway train, simply appeal to , like saving lives, aiding widows behaved children. Use the gen- njoy to urge support for the one t help to achieve them, even as f the fallacy, you should gain support a reasonable objective, been reached, reveal the unrea- d by the same principles. all in the town because people should have ant to. I'm now proposing to have gaming er for precisely the same reasons.

Secundum quid Secundum quid The fallacy of secundum quid is generalization. Whenever a gene of a very few and possibly unre committed. It takes the argum general rule on the basis of inad / was in Cambridge for ten mi The whole place must be in a (Not necessarily so. Saturday nig quite different from King's on London might have been drawn midday outside a newspaper off The fallacy lies in the assum be established. There should be sample is sufficiently large and s two cases in particular circums sumption of a general rule, a penny coming down heads can do so. Behind our identification of that the few cases observed mig rule which prevails. Don't shop there. I once bou (This smells like a broad condem Clearly there is fine judge between a secundum quid and a do enable a valid judgement to

145 s otherwise known as the hasty eralization is reached on the basis epresentative cases, the fallacy is ment from particular cases to a dequate evidence. inutes and I met three people, all drunk. state of perpetual inebriation. ght outside Trinity College might be Sunday. A similar conclusion about by a visitor who saw three people at fice.) mption of material which ought to e an attempt to establish that the sufficiently representative. One or stances do not justify the pre- any more than the sight of a n justify a claim that it will always the fallacy lies our recognition ght be exceptional to any general ught some cheese and it was mouldy. mnation placed on a narrow base.) ement required to distinguish a case where one or two instances o be made. When assessing the

146 fitness of a candidate for foster-p prudent to make a judgement on incident of child-molesting. In th psychotic commander sends his w the USSR, the General reassures demn the whole system just bec these cases deal with systems w coverage, and in which one ex ment. Secundum quid covers the which it does not. A visitor who assesses the p experience of a royal wedding da who makes a similar judgement collection day. The basic rule is ' Opinion pollsters try to be v quids. A famous American po Republican victory because it su lizing that fewer Democrats own everywhere are not averse to quoting obviously unrepresentat Scientific knowledge is like a b quids. Scientific theories are ofte few examples to back them up. when there are enough case-hist eral rule put forward to explain th never. Science proceeds with th could suddenly appear to show t are no good. A billion apples mig Newton's, but it would still take o force at least a modification to th Secundum quids will be very audiences to pass judgements w You should appeal to one or t possible, as proof of a general ju

How to Win Every Argument parent, for example, it would be n the basis of only one previous he film Dr Strangelove, when a wing on a nuclear attack against s the President: 'You can't con- cause of one let-down.' Both of which seek 100 per cent safety xception does validate a judge- e more general circumstance in population of London from his ay is likely to be as wrong as one t about Aberdeen on a charity- 'don't jump to conclusions'. very careful to avoid secundum oll once wrongly predicted a urveyed by telephone, not rea- ned telephones. Political parties 'talking up' their support by tive poll-findings. battlefield mined with secundum en put forward with only a very The problem is one of knowing tories to be sure about the gen- hem. Astonishingly, the answer is he knowledge that a new case that even its most solid theories ght have hit a billion heads since only one apple going upward to he general theory. y useful to you in persuading which coincide with your own. two cases, well-known ones if udgement.

Shifting ground All actors are left-wing subvers examples... (You then spread over the entire collected from two of them.) Shifting ground People may employ hedging to uous, or they may use a defini words meant something else. I sive type of operation, they m ground they were maintaining When people do shift the subs they commit the fallacy of shift / said I liked the project and tho objections you have all voiced, forces a view I have long held th likeable and good. (A leap from one bank to the ot superimposed on the desperatio The deception is the source original stance is avoided by sh the argument has taken place a it is irrelevant to the new positio a critique now has to start all because what has passed so far / said we'd come out stronger a that many things can strengthe

147 sives. Let me give you a couple of e profession the tar which your brush o make their contentions ambig- itional retreat to claim that their In the third version of this defen- may actually change the whole g, while still claiming continuity. stance of what they were saying, ting ground. ought it a good one. However, I share the and can only say how much this rein- hat it is not enough for a project to be ther with the grace of a ballet dancer on of a stranded man.) e of the fallacy. Criticism of the hifting to a different one. In that about the position as understood, on which is now claimed. Similarly over again on the new position r has not been centred upon it. after this election. Look, we both know en a party. I have always thought it a

148 source of strength if a party can share of the poll down to 9 per cen (This can be seen in every election It is roughly equivalent to 'I don' one against us should be seen as more of a challenge which...') The shifting sands of political f shifting ground of the fallacy. This rule that no politician must eve thing. To do so would be to ad could, by implication, be wrong fore, be sustained. Shifting grou look to us, provides a solid found There is a certain class of reli thing at all whose existence is as Here the base of discussion seem several continents, as what starte man in the sky with a white bea some abstract principle of the un Shifting ground is for defens others of a new point with it, but known that you were wrong. As t your territory after the struggle, t the head of them, leading the takenly supposed that you were After hearing his point of view, I insert the word 'not' into my moti trying to say. I therefore accept h my motion.

How to Win Every Argument respond to criticism. Now, with our nt, I think that...' n by every party except the winner. t think that a score of five goals to s a defeat for Scottish football. It is fortune often coincide with the s is because of a patently absurd er change his mind about any- dmit he was wrong before, and g now. Infallibility must, there- und, insecure though it might dation for political continuity. igious argument in which any- ssented to can be called divine. ms to slide quite happily across ted out as a discussion about a ard ends up in consideration of niverse. sive use. You cannot convince t you can use it to avoid it being the victorious armies march into they are surprised to find you at invasion. They had quite mis- e head of the defence forces. feel that Mr Smith's amendment to ion expresses the spirit of what I was his amendment as an improvement to

Shifting the burden of proof There are muscular exercises day in front of a mirror, and whi needed to shift ground rapidly. Yes, I walked through the green that extra bottle of scotch. (Does anyone spot the slight tre Shifting the burden of pr Shifting the burden of proof is mentum ad ignorantiam. It con ion without justification, on the disprove it if it is to be rejected. Normally we take it that the porting evidence or reason add who introduces it. When we a arguments against it, he comm burden of proof. 'Schoolchildren should be given teachers. ' 'Why should they?' 'Give me one good reason why th (It always looks more reasonable the janitor, the dinner-ladies an Come to think of it, they might It is the proposal itself whic resistance to it. The source of sumption that something is a

149 which you should practise every ich assist the mental contortions n line, customs officer, and I can explain emor in his feet?) roof a specialized form of the argu- nsists of putting forward an assert- e basis that the audience must . e new position must have sup- duced in its favour by the person are required instead to produce mits the fallacy of shifting the a major say in the hiring of their hey should not. ' e than it is. You could equally ask that nd the local bookie be given a say. do a better job.) ch has to be justified, not the the fallacy is the implicit pre- acceptable unless it is proved

150 otherwise. In fact the onus is u change the status quo to supply present practices and beliefs are his proposals would be superior / believe that a secret conspira world events for several hund (We don't have to, anymore than by invisible elves or Andromedan muda triangle.) The maxim of William of Occa should not be multiplied beyo introduce more by way of explan World events are already expla tionary progress or sheer rand llluminati added to the brew, an must show what evidence requi Shifting the burden is a very w Popular conception has it that he says 'prove it isn't' are on equa The one who asks for proof is si to accept more than the evidenc his intent to assume more than This particular fallacy is the fra weight of unidentified flying ob monsters, demons and bending many other, ethereal phenome burden of establishing falsity. Th be infinite. Not only is it extrao something does not exist, but possibilities to test.

How to Win Every Argument upon the person who wishes to reasons. He has to show why our e somehow inadequate, and why r. acy of llluminati has clandestinely directed dred years. Prove to me that it isn't so. n we have to prove that it isn't done ns living in pyramids under the Ber- am, usually shortened to 'entities ond necessity', tells us not to nation than is needed to explain. ained by divine purpose, evolu- dom chaos. We do not need nd he who would introduce them ires them to explain it. widespread and common fallacy. e who says 'prove it' and he who al ground. It is a misconception. imply declaring an intention not ce requires. The other is declaring that. ail prop on which rests the entire bjects, extrasensory perception, spoons. Advocates of these, and ena try to make us accept the hat burden, once taken up, would aordinarily difficult to show that there is also an infinite load of

The slippery slope You will need shifting the bu foray into the world of metaphys to the simple 'you prove it isn't', more circumlocutious form, Can you show me one convincin proves that... ? (This tempts the audience into chance to slide into 'refuting th arguments in favour of your case The popular misconception enable you to put forward views evidence. You can back gryphon the peaceful intentions of religio The slippery slope Slippery slopes are so tricky to ne step upon them sets you sliding a ever goes up a slippery slope; th disaster. The fallacy is that of su particular direction must inevita whole distance being covered. Th leads to another, and cases where suppose that after the first strid towards unpleasant consequence suppose that they must. There is a limited class of case after the first step; stepping off a most life situations there is a cho further. Those who oppose pro

151 urden of proof if you intend to sical entities. Instead of resorting you should clothe your fallacy in ng piece of evidence which actually dis- supplying instances, giving you a he example' instead of giving any e.) about the onus of proof will for which there is not a shred of ns, the perfectibility of man, or ous fundamentalists. egotiate that even the first timid all the way to the bottom. No one hey are strictly for the descent to upposing that a single step in a ably and irresistibly lead to the here are cases in which one step e it does not. It is not a fallacy to de, further steps might be taken es, but it is usually an error to es in which someone is doomed skyscraper is one of them. But in oice about whether or not to go ogress, however, often use the

152 slippery-slope argument to sug inexorably to unacceptable resu / oppose lowering the drinkin further demands to lower it to it our new-boms will be suckl The point is that the factors whic age of 21 might change. There they must keep on changing, responding. The slippery slope basically a thing without going too far. Thi has often been made by taking longer ones might have been ru If we allow French ideas on fo nothing but snails and garlic Marseillaise. (It might beat pizza and chips, th In some cases there is a point yielded, allows anything. This is however, as a vertical drop. Th conversation between the drama pretty lady: 'Would you sleep with me fo 'Why yes, I would. ' 'Here's five pounds, then. ' 'Five pounds! What do you th 'We've established that. Now (Shaw was correct, but this is no would have led the lady to imm was conceded, the rest was barg

How to Win Every Argument ggest that any reform will lead ults. ng age from 21 to 18. This will only lead to o 16. Then it will be 14, and before we know led on wine rather than mother's milk. ch lead to the arbitrary drinking is nothing which suggests that or that society must keep on argues that you cannot do any- is belies human progress, which g short steps successfully where uinous. ood to influence us, we'll soon be eating and teaching our children to sing the though.) of principle at stake which, once s not so much a slippery slope, he story is told of a dinner-table atist George Bernard Shaw and a or a million pounds?' hink I am?' w we're talking about price.' not a slippery-slope argument which morality in stages. Once the principle gaining.)

Special pleading On a slippery slope ruin is introduces the irrelevant materi far-reaching action in order to o actually made. Use the fallacy yourself to o any proposal which would not They want to charge people for but you point out that if this is next year, and more after that, u to afford to get in. The fallacy w always ready to believe that thi Just assure them that if they d certain to happen. Special pleading Special pleading involves the a Although the normal rules of evi to other cases, the fallacy of spec are exceptions, to be judged diff a speaker demands less strict tr espouses than he seeks to apply Our attempt to engage in conv chattering that other people wer (Look who's talking.) Special pleading is a source o to be applied to certain cases, w justify this than the fact that we same standards which would thr

153 s reached in stages. The fallacy ial of the consequences of more oppose the more limited proposal oppose change. There is scarcely lead to disaster if taken too far. r admission to the church bazaar, conceded they will charge more until poorer people will be unable works best on pessimists, who are ings will turn out for the worse. do anything at all, this is almost application of a double standard. idence and argument are applied cial pleading stipulates that some fferently. It normally occurs when reatment for the cause which he y elsewhere. versation was totally spoiled by all the re doing. of error. If different standards are we need rather more evidence to would like better treatment. The row out someone else's claim will

154 also throw out our own. If we we how could we justify withhold proceeds by general rules, and e While it is not normally right to i for us, as journalists, to do so bec (Even though we make private m Special pleading is sometimes because of the right which the have clerical offenders tried in ch This right, which was called 'ben special pleader seeks - the right Capitalism has always left areas allocated resources. Socialism, o properly tried. (Can you spot the special plea capitalism in practice, as applied sometimes called 'real' socialism opposite of real. Of course, if we record of capitalism, then we sho record of socialism. Theory with Special pleading is normally r would not fare well in the gen between their ideas and the ev ideas. The special pleaders, like s the evidence and show why norm in their particular case. Very often the cause which is called upon t

How to Win Every Argument ere to receive special treatment, ding it from others? Argument exceptions must be justified. invade someone's privacy, it is all right cause we serve a public need. money.) s described as 'benefit of clergy', medieval Church established to hurch courts even for civil crimes. nefit of clergy', is really what the to be tried in a different court. s of poverty and hardship, and mis- on the other hand, has never been ading? We are invited to compare d, with theoretical socialism. This is m, to conceal the fact that it is the e look at capitalist countries for the ould look at socialist countries for the theory, or practice with practice.) resorted to by those whose case neral courts. Faced with a clash vidence, scientists change their social scientists, prefer to change mal judgements cannot be made n it is the supreme importance of to justify the special standards.

The straw man Normally I would object to s global warming is so awful.. (As is the threat of fluoridation, depends on how strongly you fe On a personal level, we are ourselves than we are of other versally condemn from others, ourselves. Our queue-jumping that of anyone else. Our impu others who do it are spendth excuse ourselves also excuse ou our country. When using special pleading care that you always supply account for the exception from because it is your side which is circumstances of public interest With any other boy I'd be the was wrong, but Michael is ve be... (Talented people get away with The straw man The straw man of logic does not crow would even rustle a feathe down. Precisely. The straw man down so that when you are u argument, you can topple the s

155 spitting at public figures, but the threat of .. Sunday trading and canine nudity. It feel about it.) e all apt to be more tolerant of rs. For behaviour we would uni- we invent excuses to forgive it in is excused by urgency, but not ulse buying is justified by need; hrift. The same standards which ur team, our group, our town and in support of your own side, take some specious justification to m the general rule. It is never just involved; always there are special t. e first to admit that burning down the scho ery highly strung, as talented people tend t h arson, it seems, as well as murder.) t scare anyone. No self-respecting er at him; he is too easy to knock n is made incredibly easy to knock unable to refute your opponent's straw man instead. The straw man

156 is, in short, a misrepresentation created by you for the express p We should liberalize the laws 'No. Any society with unrestric goes only for immediate grati (Down he goes! The proposal w 'unrestricted access to drugs' ma Traditionally, the straw man statement of an opponent's pos argue against if they are taken to not make himself an extremist, yo Any easily opposed misrepresent The straw man is fallacious bec real argument. Like the ignorati is totally beside the point. His fun his demolition, a scorn which can represents. Aficionados of the straw man p those whose straw construction The point is that the straw ma created specially. By deliberately supporter of the opposition, and of the main protagonist, you in use of the straw man. Even today, applause can be of evolution, so long as one is ca evolutionary theory is more ad things such as genetics to help Darwin as a straw man and, by impression you have 'refuted' th

How to Win Every Argument n of your opponent's position, purpose of being knocked down. s on marijuana. cted access to drugs loses its work ethic and ification. ' was to liberalize marijuana laws, but akes a much less stable target.) is set up as a deliberate over- sition. Many views are easier to o extremes. If your opponent will ou can oblige with a straw man. tation will serve as your dummy. cause he says nothing about the elenchi society he belongs to, he nction is to elicit, by the ease of n be directed at the real figure he ploy reserve their loudest olés for is concealed by a layer of flesh. an does not always have to be y picking on a weak or absurd d choosing to refute him instead ndulge in the true connoisseur's gained for 'refuting' the theory areful to refute Darwin. Modern dvanced, having knowledge of p it along. But you can set up y knocking him down, give the he theory of evolution.

Temperantlam, argumentum ad It is standard practice at ele or ignorant spokesman for the to fabricate extremists who can How can we support the Dem publicly advocates a 'worker (Biff! Bam! And another straw m side, like businessmen on the ot make much better targets than t Historically, the role of the s dangers of change. A handful o greater liberty or greater tolera by legion upon legion of straw anarchy, licence, the destructio the innocents. Use of the straw man is fun. for purposes of morale. If real o walloping the occasional straw addition to the advice already g struct and demolish your straw m opponent has uttered his last man looks pretty silly lying in th disown him. If your opponent i there will be no one to deny t your feet is indeed the oppone dried-grass dummy, hastily fabr Temperantlam, argumentum If fallacies were assigned to the mentum ad temperantlam wou

157 ections to choose the most foolish other side to deal with, as well as n be felled with a scornful half-line. mocrats when one of their own union backe r state' like Soviet Russia was? man bites the dust. Union leaders on one other side, can be politically naïve, and the slippery eels who lead the parties.) straw man has been to show the of reformers or radicals advocating ance have been trampled to death w men in serried ranks calling for on of society and the slaughter of . Everyone needs a victory or two ones are nowhere to be had, then man can be most invigorating. In given, you would be wise to con- man, wherever possible, after your word on the subject. Your straw he dust if your adversary is there to is absent, or has finished his piece, that the crumpled figure lying at ent you were facing, rather than a ricated to take the fall in his place. m ad e nations of the world, the argu- uld be allocated to England. It is the

158 Englishman's fallacy. The argume that the moderate view is the cor merits, it takes moderation to be position. The unions have asked for 6 p per cent. Couldn't we avoid a strike, and agree on 4 per cen (If we did, next time the unions w management would offer minus 4 The argumentum ad tempera instinct that everything is all ri eating, moderate drinking and m widely praised by cloistered phil desires of their own. The ad temp class English feeling that any kind manners or bad breeding. One sh explain why none of them are pa accounts for their steady, but mo The fallacy enters in because useful maxim to regulate our des argument. Where one view is cor be found by taking the average expressed. If two groups are locked in ar 2+2 = 4 and the other claiming Englishman will walk in and settle groups as extremists. He is corr mists, but incorrect to suppose th / have tried, during my term o partiality on the one hand and

How to Win Every Argument entum ad temperantiam suggests rrect one, regardless of its other e a mark of the soundness of a per cent, the management have offered 2 all the hardship and waste of a lengthy nt? would demand 20 per cent and the 4 per cent.) antiam appeals to a common ight in moderation. Moderate moderate pleasures have been losophers without any extreme perantiam appeals to that upper- d of enthusiasm is a mark of bad houldn't be too keen. It helps to articularly good at anything, and oderate, decline. e, while moderation may be a sires, it has no specific merit in rrect, there is no rule that it will e or mean of all of the views rgument, one maintaining that that 2+2 = 6, sure enough, an e on 2+2 = 5, denouncing both rect to describe them as extre- hat this proves them wrong. of office, to steer a middle course between d impartiality on the other.

Temperantlam, argumentum ad (He might have added: betwee and virtue, between falling asle and nonsense.) In countries and situations w than fixed price transactions, extremes in order to influence the same procedure can be u extreme position in order to p to your way of thinking. Only in England do people Middle Way, elevating the arg guide for public policy. The Lib the fallacy, regularly taking up of the two main parties, an extremism. The main parties, i by bidding for 'the middle g Liberals to become extremists Britain New Labour was bui called it the Third Way. One side represents capitali instead a policy of co-partne and extremism. (So alluring is this type of thing other parties hastily produce v When you use the argumen should try to cultivate that a shows it to best advantage. Re extremists, probably dangero destructive. Only you, taking tuous path of moderation.

159 een truth and falsehood, between vice eep and staying awake, between sense where bargaining is more common , people routinely manipulate the the idea of a 'fair' average. Exactly used in public life, advocating an pull the eventual settlement closer e write books with titles like The gumentum ad temperantiam into a beral Party used to make a career of a position midway between those nd ritually denouncing them for in their turn, contained this threat ground' themselves. This led the s in order to attract attention. In ilt upon the temperantiam. They ism; the other stands for socialism. We of ership to replace the old politics of conflic g to the ad temperantiam mind, that the versions of it.) ntum ad temperantiam yourself, you air of smug righteousness which emember that your opponents are ous ones. They are divisive and the middle course, tread the vir-

160 You will find it useful to invent in order to cast the opposing view Councillor Watson has urged fr suggested we should charge th sensible course would be to reje charge of 25 pence? (Of course, the debate was betw pence advocates are conjured temperantiam.) Try to cultivate the company comes so naturally to them wh against Britain to concede half of i the fallacy at speed with apparent off the mark because the fallacy h When two countries are disput of islands for example, you should 'one each' suggestion. There will trying to beat you to it. Thatcher's blame When the round black hat first app This was because it looked like a b by the Bowler brothers. The te similarly catch on for two reasons the lady herself, and it covers all ca of a roof. In her first few years in office, poverty and unemployment in Br to blame for the culture of shame

How to Win Every Argument extreme positions on one side, ws as extremist also. ree travel for senior citizens. Others have hem 50 pence per journey. Surely the ect these extremes and opt for a moderate ween 25 pence and zero. The 50 d up in support of your ad y of Foreign Office officials. It hen someone makes a claim it that you will learn to commit ease. You will need to be quick has a large following. ting the ownership of a couple d be the first to leap in with the be plenty of British diplomats peared it was dubbed a bowler. bowl, and because it was made erm 'Thatcher's blame' might s: it was regularly used against ases, just as a thatcher covers all Lady Thatcher was blamed for ritain. Seamlessly this switched eless affluence as the emerging

Thatcher's blame class of yuppies flaunted th deemed to be at fault in both The fallacy of Thatcher's bl attached no matter what out because the evidence is irrele guilt precedes the outcome o about 'Thatcher's blame' is t outcomes. If a policy is introduced firs cation in England, the accusati as guinea-pigs, and put at ris hand, if the policy is introd extended to Scotland, the char being left out yet again. Fina exactly the same time in bot evidence that the policy-mak essential differences between E lose, tails you lose, and if the co The fallacy works well in opposition is supposed to op them to be against whatever t matter what the outcome mig is being 'rushed through reckl time are tagged with 'intolerab The fallacy falsely pretends based on the outcome, when have been applied to any outc ain's tabloid press, where once any action they take is deeme the opprobrium comes anywa on the morality or merits of th I've been asked to a christening outlandish name that will make

161 heir new-found wealth. She was h cases. lame' is committed when blame is tcome ensues. The fallacy occurs evant when the determination of of their actions. Indeed, the point that it covers all the conceivable st in Scotland, ahead of its appli- ion is that the Scots are being used sk simply to test it. On the other duced in England before being rge will be made that the Scots are ally, if the policy is introduced at th countries, this will be taken as kers are failing to appreciate the England and Scotland. Heads you oin lands on its edge you also lose. parliament because the official ppose. 'Thatcher's blame' allows the government decides to do, no ght be. Thus anything done quickly lessly', while measures which take ble delays'. s that a judgement is being made n that negative judgement would come. It regularly appears in Brit- e a celebrity has fallen from favour ed to deserve condemnation. Since ay, it expresses no real judgement he actions themselves. g, but I'm sure they'll give the child some e it a laughing-stock. Either that or some

162 unbelievably tedious and comm seem like a faceless conformis The fallacy is easy to use bec which would rather hear ill than gossips don't go round praisin actions. To use it effectively, you proposed action, predicting an introduce an alternative conseque if . . . ' This allows you to predict audience will never spot that you every conceivable case. If you thin for over a century the followers of capitalism, whatever outcomes it Trivial objections The problem with trivial objection thesis largely untouched. It is fall on the basis of minor and inciden an answer to the main claim whic / am totally opposed to the new our town maps out of date. (It is rare for the fate of a new road it does to the maps. That said, h that the maps show that towns re matters.) The fallacy is akin to that of th the main opponent, in this case it are confronted. The trivial objectio is that they are also trivial, and

How to Win Every Argument monplace name which will make the child st. cause it preys upon an instinct n good about people. After all, ng people for their righteous u should pour scorn on some n adverse outcome. You then ence with the words 'And even more dire consequences. Your u have, like the fallacy, covered nk this too obvious, reflect that f Marxism predicted disaster for produced. ns is that they leave the central lacious to oppose a contention ntal aspects, rather than giving ch it makes. w road around the town. It will make all of d to be decided on the basis of what however, one cannot help noticing each very strange decisions on such he straw man. Instead of facing is only a few aspects of it which ons are possibly valid; the point not adequate to the work of