Background checks for gun purchases have been required by state and federal laws for decades, the only question is whether we’re going to apply the law to everyone or continue to have a nonsensical and dangerous loophole.įrom the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which means “after this, therefore because of this.” Also known as false cause.Ī Post Hoc argument is one where the speaker confuses correlation with causation, specifically, that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. I am arguing for a specific policy and you are responding with a circular argument that’s supported by no evidence at all. ĮXAMPLE: “Our Second Amendment rights are absolute, so gun control laws are illegal.” Often called circular reasoning, it begins and ends at the same place. In an argument Begging the Question, the conclusion is assumed in one of the argument’s premises, and that premise is not supported by independent evidence. But it’s also fairly common in many other areas of debate, e.g., If we allow the sale of marijuana, it will lead to the legalization of all drugs.Īlso known as: assuming the initial point, chicken and the egg, and circular reasoning. The gun lobby uses Slippery Slope more than anyone. If I argue for driver’s licenses are you going to say it will lead to bicycle licenses? If I argue for cleaner drinking water are you going to say it will lead to a shutoff of all water? Let’s debate the issue of background checks-why do you think we should sell these guns to any adult whatsoever, no questions asked? We are debating a specific proposal which clearly and obviously does not include your concern. Specifically, this is a claim that a policy which takes a small step in one direction will lead to a chain of events that will result in drastic change.ĮXAMPLE: “If we require background checks for the sale of all guns, including private sales at gun shows, it will lead to the federal government obtaining the information to create a list of who owns guns which, in time, will lead to the confiscation of privately-owned firearms.” I’m saying our goal must be to promote people’s health and well-being, not impose someone’s beliefs on others.Īlso known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, and camel’s nose under the tent.Ī Slippery Slope argument is a version of a Red Herring. We are currently debating whether politicians should interfere in a woman’s most important and personal life decisions. That is not the issue before this legislature. And abortion on demand means eliminating all consideration of the unborn child as well as women’s health.” It sets up an easy (and false) target for the speaker to knock down.ĮXAMPLE: “The pro-abortion lobbyists oppose a waiting period and sonogram requirement because they favor abortion on demand. Let’s talk about that.Ī Strawman argument is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. I’m saying it provides hard-working families with income to spend on their basic needs. Right now, we’re debating specific legislation before the legislature/council to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Let us consider five of the most common informal logical fallacies-arguments that may sound convincing but actually rely on a flaw in logic.Īlso known as: misdirection, smokescreen, clouding the issue, beside the point, and the Chewbacca defense.Ī Red Herring argument is one that changes the subject, distracting the audience from the real issue to focus on something else where the speaker feels more comfortable and confident.ĮXAMPLE: “It may be true that the minimum wage should be adjusted, but the real solution is to eliminate burdensome government regulations so businesses can grow and be able to pay their employees higher salaries.” Progressives have gotten so used to hearing bald-faced political lies that perhaps we have become a little less ready to recognize rhetorical tricks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |