At a time when almost every discussion has the potential to become a powder keg, it is necessary to establish order in how discussions should be conducted properly so that they do not become mere mindless and meaningless shouting. We have therefore selected the most fundamental argumentation fallacies and fouls to watch out for.
Attacking the person
We attack the argument, not the speaker. This basic rule of discussion should be carved in stone and displayed for all to see. In essence, it is about discrediting the discussant in order to undermine confidence in their line of argument. However, the person debating has never been the subject of the debate, and the truth or falsehood of a statement has nothing to do with them. A similar type of argumentative fallacy is an attack on motive, where the debater accuses the other side of presenting an argument as valid because they have a personal interest in it, or accuses them of hypocrisy – how can the argument be true if those concerned do not follow it themselves? We are moving from the realm of logic to the realm of emotions.
We encounter this tactic almost daily – it has become very popular among opponents of Greta Thunberg, who claim that her medical diagnosis invalidates her statements on climate change.
Changing the subject
You have probably noticed in political debates that the person being questioned avoids uncomfortable questions and tries to steer the conversation onto safer ground. This is the most innocent version of this argumentative foul. Another form is to switch to attacking the person who asked the question, saying that they themselves have many problems that need to be addressed. This is essentially just a slight modification of the previous point.
Perhaps every government has used this foul at some point, preferring to point out the mistakes of previous governments when questioned about its own mistakes, without addressing its own, which were the subject of the discussion.
Demanding personal experience
This could be considered a subset of the previous point, but it occurs so often that it deserves its own section. We often encounter the objection, “If you haven’t experienced it, don’t talk about it,” for example, when discussing communism. The logic that someone cannot have an opinion other than based on their own lived experience obviously does not work; we have many other channels of information. To follow this argument would essentially mean burying all historical sciences, because we do not have many witnesses to the Roman Empire left.
The rebuke “you couldn’t do better yourself, so don’t criticize” comes from the same vein. Again, it overlooks the possibility of acquiring knowledge and skills from other sources of information. Moreover, you don’t have to be a chef to know that a meal has not turned out well. Not a single sentence refutes the validity of the rebuke.
Slippery slope and appeal to fear or compassion
The phrase “going downhill” has become popular to describe someone’s unfortunate development. And unfortunate development is usually predicted by the person who resorts to this tactic. They draw conclusions from the other side’s argument, and then more and more, with disaster usually at the end of this series. The problem arises when there is no data or supporting facts for such inferences and the predicted outcome is only one of many that could potentially occur, usually the bleakest one. The addressee is then appealed to on the grounds that society cannot allow such a thing to happen, either because of its civility or for its own safety, etc.
Artificial value
This approach relies on portraying a given statement in a certain light based on the consent of a large number of people, tradition or, conversely, novelty, and other criteria. The opposing side is thus cast in the role of an opponent of the people, a disruptor of old and functioning orders, or a saboteur of progress—which, of course, implies the need to be held accountable. However, consent, tradition, and progress are not and cannot be criteria for correctness.
Authority
The use of expert authority and its support for a particular fact cannot be directly labeled as a fallacy. However, it should be noted that even the greatest experts can be wrong, and therefore it is necessary to have multiple expert opinions and to work with them critically, not with unconditional respect. Referring to anonymous studies or experts is a fallacy in argumentation – this practice is often masked by a substitute name that suggests broad consensus among experts. A perfect example of this is the often-parodied phrase “American scientists have found.” In short, even in discussion, sources must be carefully cited.
