Chapter 6. Golden Rule 6: Watch out for crafty tricks

There are some nasty tricks that people can play when making arguments. Here are some. Watch out for your opponent using them against you.

---

In arguments you need to be subtle, watchful, alert and curious.

---

Churchill: “Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.”

An all too common way of arguing is to avoid the argument and to attack the person. For those who like clever-sounding Latin, this is sometimes called an ad hominem (to the man) argument. Consider this:

Susan’s response is unlikely to be productive. It will certainly inflame Alf and is unlikely to be attractive to those listening. Indeed, it may even cause listeners to be embarrassed for Alf and support him when they would not have done so before. Alf’s best response would be to try to focus again on the issue:

Of course there might be times when a personal response is appropriate. It might be that you’re discussing a person’s qualities for a job or issues of personal morality. However, generally you should be very cautious about making an attack on a person, rather than the argument. It rarely gets you anywhere.

• “Whenever ice cream sales rise, so do shark attacks.” (So does eating ice cream make you delicious?)

• “As more economists are recruited to the Treasury, inflation rises.” (Do economists cause inflation?)

• “As vocabulary increases in infancy, so does appetite.” (Does talking make you more hungry?)

If there is some evidence that two facts are linked, do not assume that one causes the other. As these examples show, making that assumption can lead you into error. In fact, finding cause can be very difficult. Much research has been carried out into what makes people thin or obese, or what makes people smoke. The answer, unsurprisingly, is a whole host of factors. And be alert to your opponent assuming that one fact causes the other. It’s a certain way of finding a hole in their argument.

It’s easy to slip into an error of assuming that because a common cause of B is A, then if B occurred so did A. Consider this argument:

When Bob gets drunk he does not come into work. Bob has not come into work, therefore he is drunk.

This, of course, does not necessarily follow. Bob may not be at work for any number of other reasons. Logicians call this the danger of affirming the consequent. Of course, if Bob regularly misses work due to drunkenness it becomes more likely that this is the reason for his absence. But we must not assume it is necessarily so.

So, when arguing, watch out for your opponent arguing that something is so because they have made an assumption about what happened before. Get them to agree to prove what has actually happened before you accept that their conclusion is correct.

Many millions of dollars have been spent on trying to find extraterrestrials and none have been found, therefore they don’t exist.

Of course, the fact that studies have not proved something does not mean that the thing is not true, or indeed that the thing is true. Many great minds have pondered the question of whether there is a God, with differing conclusions. But just because no one has been able to prove that there is a God does not mean there cannot be. Just as the fact no one has been able to prove there is no God does not prove that there is.

A useful point to bear in mind here is that where there is a lack of evidence we tend to rely on what we expect normally to occur. If I were to tell you that I had met the Queen yesterday and produced a dated photograph of me and the Queen standing side by side, that may be enough to convince you that what I said was probably true. If, however, I was to say I met a Martian yesterday, and produced a photograph, that would probably not convince you. Indeed, I would need to produce an enormous amount of evidence to persuade you. That’s because it is not implausible that I met the Queen, but most people start off with a heavy assumption that Martians do not exist.

Similarly, at work, someone might say that the last deal your company did with X Co did not work well. That is interesting, but it doesn’t mean that all deals with X Co will be unsuccessful.

All vegetarians disapprove of eating meat. All vegetarians are worried about global warming. Therefore all those worried about global warming are vegetarian.

That, of course, does not follow. Just because some people worried about global warming are vegetarian does not mean all who worry about it are. Here there has been an “illicit” process from one fact to another. Don’t be taken in by arguments of this kind. Test carefully whether the arguer is assuming that all people of a particular kind are the same.

“You are either for us or against us.”

This gives you only two options: to agree or disagree. Of course, you may want to agree in part, or be neither for nor against the proposal. But the rhetorical device closes those options for the listener.

Parents soon become experts at this:

“You can either eat your greens or go straight to bed.”

There are, in reality, many other options for the child but the parent has presented the child with just two.

As both the examples show, “bifurcation,” to give it its technical name, is a particularly popular form of argument where one of the alternatives is seen as highly unpleasant. The child doesn’t want to go to bed and so takes the option of eating the greens. Those listening to George W. Bush who did not want to side with terrorists were left with the option of siding with George W.—even if that meant siding with a man who said:

“I’m telling you there’s an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That’s the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best.”

George W. Bush

Sometimes a good arguer can turn the bifurcation argument on its head. Consider this argument:

“If we build a new railway station here, either it will be empty and a waste of money or it will be full and the nearby roads will not be able to cope.”

One reply would be:

“Well, if we build a new railway station here, either it will be empty and the nearby roads will be able to deal with the traffic or it will be full and it will have been a financial success.”

Further, the false-choice argument is an example of a particular use of the burden of proof, the best known example of which is Pascal’s wager. Blaise Pascal was a renowned mathematician and philosopher who lived in the seventeenth century. He produced what he thought was a convincing argument for why everyone should believe in God. It went like this. Either there is a God or there is not. If there is a God and you don’t believe in him you may go to hell. If there is no God and you believe in him, you might have less fun in life but you don’t lose out much. Therefore it’s better to believe in God. Another version of this argument is sometimes heard in the climate change debate:

“If climate change is man-made and we cut CO₂ emissions we might save the planet.”

“If climate change is not man-made and we cut CO₂ emissions we won’t lose anything, except perhaps suffer some economic harm.”

The choice again is presented in such a way that there are two alternatives: one has a potentially terrible loss (eternal damnation, loss of the planet) and only a small gain (less fun in life, some economic harm); the other has no terrible loss, but a huge potential gain (eternal life, saving the planet). So presented, the argument seems compelling to choose belief in God and cutting CO₂ emissions.

In many ways these are convincing arguments but it can be difficult to persuade people that they should avoid the awful possibilities mentioned, even at the cost of some minor inconvenience.

The best counter to such arguments is to suggest that it is not as straightforward as the two possibilities mentioned. In relation to God there is the question of which god to believe in. There are so many gods and if you chose the wrong one you might still end up in damnation. Similarly in relation to CO₂ emissions, the argument hides the option of slightly cutting CO₂ emissions with less economic loss.

An alternative is to explore the likelihood of the events being true. If you think it’s just possible, but very unlikely, there is a God you might think the risk of eternal damnation is worth running in order to enjoy the “pleasures” of this world. If, however, you think it very likely that climate change is man-made, the argument presented above may become overwhelming.

When faced with a false-choice argument, first recognize it for what it is: a false choice. You can explore the likelihood of the events being true, as well as look for ways in which the arguments are not as straightforward as they appear. By this means you can bring meaning to the discussion and depth to the argument.

“You never do the dishes.”

“Politicians don’t understand what it is to be poor.”

These kinds of comments are really asking for trouble. It’s nearly always possible to think of exceptions. The person you’re arguing with can easily come up with a counter-example (“Well, I did the dishes last Sunday’). Your point is then weakened and indeed you’re even open to the charge that you’re exaggerating or lying. In the examples just given, if you wished to make the point you could do so in a way that would be more attractive:

“You don’t do the dishes very often.”

“Many politicians don’t understand what it is to be poor.”

Of course these statements may still be untrue, but they are much more likely to be true than the generalizations mentioned earlier.

Do be careful of the use of individual cases. Consider this:

“Everyone is so rude these days. Just yesterday a person knocked into me and didn’t even apologize; they just walked on.”

It’s easy in this case to seek to challenge the example raised. You may offer possible reasons for what happened that would explain the apparent rudeness. Maybe the person who knocked into her didn’t speak English and so couldn’t apologize. However, usually a better way to respond is to produce examples of your own where people were not rude. In fact, if you’re trying to show that a generalization is untrue you are on stronger ground than a person seeking to show it’s not. So to dispute the claim:

“All English people are good at waiting patiently in lines”

all you need to do is to show a single example where that was not true. However, typically, to support such a claim a single case (which could very well be one-of-a-kind) is used.

“You say that we should stop people smoking because it makes people ill. Do you support stopping people eating fatty foods?”

This is a perfectly fair argument. It’s helpful because it will elucidate why the person thinks the way they do. It might highlight the fact that their opinion is based on prejudice. If the smoking-banner were to reply:

“Well, I really enjoy fast food so I don’t want to ban that”

then they lay themselves open to a charge that they want to ban the vices that other people have, but not their own! They need to produce a good reason to distinguish the cases or agree that both are the same. So instead they could argue:

“Well, the vast majority of smokers die from smoking-related illnesses, but few eaters of unhealthy food die from their diets.”

Of course it would be necessary to back up the factual claims made there. Alternatively they could argue:

“Yes, quite right. As citizens we owe each other a duty to keep healthy. All clearly unhealthy behaviors should be banned, be that smoking or eating unhealthy food.”

For the “like cases” tactic to work, you might need to apply your position to what might seem an odd view, but not necessarily wrong. Say, for example, you are committed to opposing sex discrimination. You’re then asked, “Well, do you think women should be able to apply to be boxers?” The answer should be, “Yes, why not?” If you are committed to your principle then unless you have a good reason you should stick to it even if the consequences seem odd. But beware, it may be that you are being tricked. “Is a film director entitled to refuse a woman the role of Winston Churchill?” The answer may be: “Yes, as long as he is not refusing her the role because she is a woman, that’s permissible. If other candidates look more like Churchill they may be better suited to the role.”

Quite clearly here Raj is aware that he has no excuse for forgetting the birthday, and is trying to introduce a new topic of conversation on which he is far more comfortable: the handsomeness of his beau.

This is, in fact, a common way of dealing with a brewing argument in social situations.

“Well, this is a really interesting discussion, but I’m afraid I must get ready to go out. Did I tell you we were going to see this new film?”

Often both parties, if they are friends, are happy to avoid the controversial issue and discuss the more pleasant topic of the film. Normally, introducing a red herring is an invitation to abandon the argument and discuss something different. You’ll need to decide whether or not to accept the invitation.

Some red herrings are deliberate attempts to muddle you.

Alf has deliberately set off on a change of focus. Brian needs to bring it back to the subject.

But not all red herrings are appreciated. Let’s go back to the man who forgot the birthday. I’m sure we have all wanted to upbraid someone about an issue only to find they keep changing the subject we’re trying to address. It can be infuriating! Both parties need to beware here. The red herring can be a clear sign that you don’t want the argument now, but pay attention to whether the other party takes the bait.

Using a red herring can be dangerous too. Is this an argument that needs to be had? It may be that if the issue is not resolved now it will always be sidelined. Is this perhaps the right time and place for this argument? Is it an argument over a topic that might actually be productive? At least recognizing a red herring will give you a choice on how to proceed. And it’s a useful tool to employ yourself if you ever get stuck at the watercooler discussing your salary!

“God exists because the Bible tells us so. We can trust the Bible because it is the word of God.”

All of this may be true, but this argument is not a good one! Arguments from logic require us to start with a fact that is true and reason from this. The difficulty in this example is that A is only true if B is true, and B is only true if A is true. Another example of a circular argument is this:

“I’m better than you at arguing. You always end up agreeing I’m right. You should accept I’m the better arguer.”

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Whether the man answers yes or no he is admitting that he has beaten or is beating his wife. More subtle forms would be:

“Has your unethical approach affected your profits?”

This can be a crafty device to get the hidden fact accepted. Lawyers in courtrooms use this technique a lot. The question:

“Who was the woman you were with on the night in question?”

assumes there was a woman and can trick the witness into accepting that fact if they’re not very careful. If the witness replies, “I don’t want to say; it’s private,” the witness has admitted he was with someone.

This is a clever trick to learn if you want to get other facts from your opponent to further your argument. So if you’re wondering whether your wife is really going to her exercise class at the gym, or whether she might be having an affair with Brian, you could ask, “How is Brian these days?”

“We told you we would supply you with a new car, but we did not claim it would work.”

You can spot a literalist by some tell-tale words: “Let’s look at my exact words ...” or “All I said was ....” The annoying thing is that their arguments can often carry much weight in a court of law. In a contract dispute they will only be bound by what they promised to do. Indeed, if you’re in a dispute over whether you have broken your word it’s well worth thinking carefully about what you said you would do.

So what can you say to your literalist? One response is to see whether you can turn the tables on them. Maybe you agreed to pay them, but never said when you would. This way you can turn the tables on them and say: “If you are going to take your obligations literally, so will I.” That may lead to an agreement to read the contract in a sensible way.

Alternatively, you could ask what they meant people to think when they said what they said. A good response to a literalist is to suggest that had they wanted to say what they claimed, they could have done so clearly. Consider this:

Mary is making some good points here. She may not persuade Shazia, but she’s making her argument well.

---

Sometimes it is best to give up arguing with literalists.

---

“You don’t want to be vegetarian. Hitler was one of them.”

Here you’re suggesting that supporters of vegetarianism are associated with Hitler. Of course, that’s completely unfair. Wicked people just occasionally have non-offensive views. It’s really quite difficult to be wrong all of the time about everything!

Sometimes “hostile association” is more subtle and relies on a hearer’s prejudice:

“A right-wing think tank has suggested lowering taxes, but ...”

Such a speaker is relying on you immediately dismissing any idea that has come from a right-wing think tank. Similarly if, let’s say, the accounting department in your firm is particularly unpopular you could argue:

“Now, this proposal is very popular with the accounting department, but ...”

“Abortion is murder because it involves the killing of an innocent child.”

Well, “the killing of an innocent child” is murder and so in effect all that is being done here is to restate the conclusion, but create the impression that an argument has been used. You can normally spot such an argument if you think, “Well, anyone who believed your first point would agree with the second.”

In that argument the conclusion that there are no dangers with the deal is only true if it’s true that the deal will make an excellent profit. You can often spot a begging-the-question argument because it’s one that no one could disagree with, if only the fact it started with is correct.

“Where next? Will we deny treatment to those who are overweight, to those who do not exercise enough? You will end up with insurance companies only offering treatment to superfit, ultra-virtuous athletes.”

In a “slippery-slope” argument, the arguer seeks to show that there is no logical place to draw the dividing line, that once one exception is accepted then a line cannot be drawn anywhere sensibly. You’re therefore driven to accepting an absurd conclusion. Because you don’t want to reach the absurd conclusion you decide it would be better not to take even one step down the slippery slope. For example, schools and colleges often have absolute policies on matters such as uniforms, for fear that once one exception is granted there will be a flood of requests for more exceptions.

In a slippery-slope argument, you make the point that once we allow A, we must also allow B, C, D and E, as there is no good reason for distinguishing them from A. Your argument is that having to accept D or E will be disastrous. We must, therefore, not allow even the exception of A, however innocuous it might look on its own.

Responding to a slippery-slope argument can be difficult. There are two ways this can be attempted.

• Deny that the slope is slippery. One response is to suggest that the place where you had drawn the line is a justifiable one and there is no reason why you need to accept that other scenarios would follow.

“I think we can allow an exception to the uniform code for this student because this involves a religious belief. We can explain that only exceptions based on religious belief will be allowed, and there will not be many of those.”

• You could argue that the slope is slippery everywhere. The argument here is that there is no sensible reason to draw the line where you do but it has to be drawn somewhere. Take, for example, the fact that to buy alcohol you need to be 21 in the US. Now, it’s easy to argue that this is an arbitrary line. Nothing magical happens on the night of a twenty-first birthday. But this point can be made at whatever age is chosen. It can always be argued that the child does not magically become more mature in the course of a few hours the day before the relevant birthday.

This is true in lots of areas of life. Take speeding. Is it really that much more dangerous to drive at 31 mph than 29 mph? Probably not, but driving at the first speed can cause you to end up with a ticket, the latter not. So the first question to ask is whether there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Well, assuming we don’t want 7-year-olds buying beer and we don’t want roads without speed limits, we need to draw the line somewhere. Having reached that conclusion, we need to accept that wherever the line is drawn there will be cases either side of the line where it seems arbitrary. The next question is whether the place the line is drawn is a reasonably good one. So, regarding the age to buy alcohol, we are confident that, generally, under 21-year-olds lack the maturity needed to make the decision to buy alcohol, while over 21-year-olds do possess it. If that is correct, there is a strong argument for saying, yes the line drawn is an arbitrary one, but we have to draw a line somewhere, and this place is the best place to draw it.

“Bob has suggested that we relocate to Boston, but what will happen if there is a national railway strike?”

Or more dramatically:

“That financial plan looks very sensible, but what would happen if there is a stock market crash?”

This form of argument is common. Its essence is very sensible: it can be used to point out the dangers of a proposed course of action. However, the argument should be treated with care. Virtually any idea could be opposed on the basis that one can imagine a scenario where it would be foolish. “But what if ..?” can always be asked. For example:

“We should not buy Christmas presents this year, because Martians may land tomorrow and take over the world.”

A good use of “what if?” is to show that not only are there potentially disastrous consequences, but that those are realistic. If you are the opponent of a “what if” argument, your case will be even stronger if you can show that there are alternatives that are just as good, but that do not carry with them the suggested disadvantages. Also, many “what if” arguments can be defeated by saying that the dreaded scenario will be a problem whatever the situation is. If Martians land and take over the world, the fact you have bought Christmas presents may be the least of your worries!

“I read yesterday an article from my opponent’s party arguing we should raise taxes so that we can spend money on improving Buckingham Palace. Well, I think the Queen can well afford to look after her own building rather than calling on the downtrodden taxpayers of England. So I say: No More Taxes.”

This argument is designed to make its opponents look foolish. However, it is based on the false assumption that the only argument opponents might make is the one mentioned. Of course, much better arguments could be used for raising taxes than the one mentioned.

A version of the straw-man argument is to characterize your opponent’s arguments in the most extreme way possible:

“I hate green politicians; they would close down every factory in the country if they had a chance.”

“Those who support cuts in the defense budget want to leave our country open to be invaded.”

The best way to defeat the straw-man argument is clearly to dissociate yourself from the ridiculous argument:

“I agree with my opponent that raising taxes to improve Buckingham Palace would be absurd. But I can think of much better things to use tax money on than that. What about improving our hospitals. Would you agree to raising taxes to spend more on hopsitals?”

So beware of those who use the two-wrongs argument, and be careful of using it yourself. It is never a justification for any position.

Silence is, of course, key in order to avoid an argument altogether. Remember Golden Rule 2: there is a time and place for every argument. If you’re not sure whether this is the time or place, it’s probably best simply to remain silent. Silence is in its nature equivocal; you should not be taken to disagree or agree with what is being said. If you are pushed to respond you can simply say: “I’m not ready to discuss this right now.”

Silence may also be an appropriate response where you feel that the person you are arguing with has made a very good point to which you don’t have a ready response. Being silent may encourage them to make another point to which you may have a better answer.

“Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.”

Josh Billings

While the other person is dealing with your questions you will have some time to think about what you want to say.