Ch 9. Fallacies That Violate the Rebuttal Criterion

A strong argument should anticipate and address potential serious criticisms. When an argument fails to provide an effective rebuttal, it commits a fallacy that violates the rebuttal criterion.

Fallacies of Counterevidence

These fallacies occur when an arguer attempts to avoid an effective rebuttal by refusing to consider, minimizing, or ignoring counterevidence.

1. Denying the Counterevidence

Definition: Refusing to seriously consider or unfairly minimizing evidence that contradicts one’s claim.

• Tactics Used:

  • Outright rejection of counterevidence.
  • Dismissing it as unreliable or biased.
  • “Explaining away” counterevidence instead of addressing it.

• Examples:

  • “I don’t care what scientific studies say—climate change is just a hoax.”
  • “That study on marijuana safety was probably funded by the drug industry, so it’s invalid.”
  • “Homosexuality isn’t genetic—those studies were just made up by radical liberals.”

• Attack Strategy:

  • Ask, “What kind of evidence would convince you?” If they say nothing, point out their unwillingness to consider counterevidence.
  • If they name a type of evidence, try to present it and see if they engage honestly.

2. Ignoring the Counterevidence

Definition: Presenting an argument while deliberately omitting important evidence that contradicts one’s position.

• Tactics Used:

  • Failing to mention key evidence against a claim.
  • Creating a one-sided argument.
  • Giving the false impression that no significant opposition exists.

• Examples:

  • “The death penalty is great because it deters crime and saves money.”
    • Ignored Counterevidence: Studies show it does not deter crime, and wrongful executions occur.
  • “Motorcycles are awful because they’re noisy and dangerous.”
    • Ignored Counterevidence: They are cheaper, more fuel-efficient, and easier to park.
  • “There’s no reason to go to the theater when you can rent movies at home.”
    • Ignored Counterevidence: The big-screen experience, new releases, and social enjoyment.

• Attack Strategy:

  • Point out missing evidence and ask why it was excluded.
  • Ask the arguer to address major counterevidence—if they cannot, suggest they reconsider their position.
  • Watch for fake rebuttals—some arguers dismiss minor objections while ignoring stronger criticisms.

Ad Hominem Fallacies

These fallacies fail to meet the rebuttal criterion by unfairly attacking the critic instead of addressing criticisms or counterevidence.

1. Abusive Ad Hominem

Definition: Attacking one’s opponent personally instead of addressing their argument.

• Tactics Used:

  • Insulting the opponent instead of engaging with their points.
  • Focusing on personal traits rather than logical reasoning.

• Examples:

  • “No wonder you think casual sex is okay—you’ve never had a good relationship.”
  • “I don’t care what Professor Lay says about sculpture—her work is garbage.”
  • “Why should we listen to the landlord about cleanliness? He wears the same shirt for a week.”

• Attack Strategy:

  • Stay calm and redirect the discussion: “But what do you think of my actual argument?”
  • Point out that the person and the argument are separate—even disagreeable people can make good points.

2. Poisoning the Well

Definition: Rejecting a criticism by attacking the critic’s motives or circumstances.

• Tactics Used:

  • Discrediting the source before engaging with their argument.
  • Claiming bias or self-interest makes the argument invalid.

• Examples:

  • “You’re not a woman, so your opinion on abortion doesn’t matter.”
  • “You can’t trust what Professor Mahaffey says about teacher salaries—he’s a teacher.”
  • “Since you’re not in a fraternity, your opinion on hazing doesn’t count.”

• Attack Strategy:

  • Point out that an argument stands on its own regardless of who makes it.
  • Use absurd counterexamples: “Since you’re not a novelist, your book review isn’t valid.”

3. Two-Wrongs Fallacy (Tu Quoque)

Definition: Dismissing a criticism by pointing out that the critic is guilty of the same behavior.

• Tactics Used:

  • Deflecting attention by accusing the critic of hypocrisy.
  • Using “But you do it too!” as an excuse to avoid addressing the criticism.

• Examples:

  • “You work just as hard as I do, so don’t tell me to slow down.”
  • “Dad, how can you tell me not to drink when you have a bourbon in your hand?”
  • “The golf pro says to keep my head down, but she doesn’t always do it—so why should I?”

• Attack Strategy:

  • Acknowledge the accusation of hypocrisy but insist on evaluating the argument separately.
  • Remind the arguer that someone else’s bad behavior doesn’t make yours okay.

Key Takeaway:

Ad hominem fallacies avoid engaging with the actual argument by attacking the person, their motives, or their actions. A strong rebuttal addresses the argument itself, not the person making it.

—

Fallacies of Diversion

These fallacies fail to meet the rebuttal criterion by diverting attention from weaknesses in an argument or the strength of an opponent’s argument.

1. Attacking a Straw Man

Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.

• Tactics Used:

  • Distorting the opponent’s argument.
  • Oversimplifying complex arguments.
  • Extending the argument beyond its intended scope.

• Examples:

  • Senator Coulthard proposes cutting waste in the military budget. His opponent claims this will “undermine national security and make us a second-rate power.”
  • A person argues that building a power plant is necessary for energy demands. The opponent replies, “So you don’t care about the environment at all?”
  • Critics of school prayer rulings claim courts “ban prayer” in schools, misrepresenting the ruling that only bans state-sponsored prayer.

• Attack Strategy:

  • Ask the opponent to summarize your position—this exposes distortions.
  • Correct misrepresentations and refocus on the actual argument.
  • Do not defend a misrepresented version of your position.

2. Trivial Objections

Definition: Attacking minor points instead of addressing the main argument.

• Tactics Used:

  • Focusing on insignificant details rather than major claims.
  • Criticizing examples or illustrations instead of the argument itself.

• Examples:

  • Rejecting Christianity because “Jesus walking on water is scientifically impossible,” ignoring larger theological arguments.
  • Suzanne argues that walking is great exercise. Sherell dismisses it by saying, “But I don’t eat at the cafeteria.”
  • A student fails a course for multiple reasons but argues that their professor’s mention of their lack of class participation was unfair.

• Attack Strategy:

  • Acknowledge minor flaws, then redirect to the core argument.
  • Ask how trivial objections affect the argument’s overall validity.
  • Clearly separate strong and weak supports in your argument.

3. Red Herring

Definition: Introducing a side issue to divert attention from the main argument.

• Tactics Used:

  • Changing the topic to avoid difficult questions.
  • Bringing up irrelevant comparisons.
  • Responding to one issue with another unrelated issue.

• Examples:

  • Someone complains about low wages, and a parent replies, “Well, I only made $35 a week at your age.”
  • Senator Yates asks why his opponent doesn’t support an anti-abortion amendment. The opponent replies, “Well, why don’t you support gun control?”
  • Peter argues that an honor code won’t work at a school without a tradition for it. Anne responds, “But other schools have used it successfully.”

• Attack Strategy:

  • Point out: “That’s not the issue we’re discussing.”
  • Explain how the argument has been sidetracked.
  • Ask the opponent to return to the original question.

4. Resort to Humor or Ridicule

Definition: Using humor or ridicule to avoid addressing a serious argument.

• Tactics Used:

  • Making jokes instead of serious responses.
  • Mocking the opponent instead of addressing their points.
  • Turning the audience against the opponent with humor.

• Examples:

  • A third-party candidate is asked how they would work with an uncooperative Congress. They joke, “Half of Congress would drop dead from shock if I won.”
  • During a debate, Reagan defuses concerns about his age by joking, “I won’t exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
  • A professor, criticized for poor logic, jokes, “Looks like Socrates snuck into class today!”

• Attack Strategy:

  • Acknowledge humor but redirect to the issue: “That’s funny, but let’s get back to the question.”
  • Point out that jokes do not replace logical rebuttals.
  • Reiterate the original argument and insist on a serious response.

Key Takeaway:

Fallacies of diversion shift attention away from the argument to avoid addressing valid criticism. A strong rebuttal keeps the focus on the main issue and demands a direct response.