One of my favourite books is 'Straight and Crooked Thinking'. There is an invaluable guide at the back of this book: 38 dishonest tactics used in arguments
1) The use of emotionally toned words.
He is a terrorist; he is a freedon fighter.
2) Making a statement in which 'all' is implied but 'some' is true``
English people have bad teeth.
3) Proof by selected instances
If we are arguing for the success of private enterprise, it is not sufficent to quote a couple of examples of failed public enterprises or successful private enterprises.
4) Extension of an opponent's proposition
"If you are against fox hunting then logically you should be against all forms of hunting".
5) Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula
"the exception proves the rule"
6) Diversion to another question, to a side issue or to an irrelevancy.
One may argue against a literal interpretation of the bible by saying one does believe Jonah could be swallowed by a whale and live. His opponent counters by saying the bible says it was 'a great fish' and a whale is not a fish. Irrelevant diversion! This tactic is likely to be successful if humour is involved.
7) Proof by inconsequential argument.
"Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and again in 1939 so this proves the war was started by Churchill." There is no logical connection between the facts and the conclusion.
8) The argument that we should not make efforts against X because there is a worse evil Y.
For example as an argument against anti war demonstrations, it was stated that more deaths resulted from road accidents in some number of years than in some war. A debator may ask why politicians concern themselves with wages when the threat of overpopulation will end civilisation.
9) The recommendation of a position because it is between two extremes.
If I wished to cinvinve you that 2+2=5, I might commend it to you as the safe middle position between 2+2=4 and 2+2=6. There is no reason why truth cannot lie on one extreme.
10) Pointing out the logical correctness of an argument whose premises contain doubtful or untrue statements.
All fungi are poisonous
Mushrooms are fungi
Therefore mushrooms are poisonous.
The logic is fine but the first premise is worng so the conclusion is wrong.
11) The use of an argument of unsound logical form
All A's are B
C is a B
therefore C is an A
All planets are spherical
this ball is spherical
Therefore this ball is a planet is pretty obviously wrong
All communists are evil
he is evil
therefore he is a communist - is a common argument form in some places
12) Argument in a circle
P is true because of Q; Q is true because of P
It is argued that human action is not free because say we have a choice between standing and running away, the stronger impulse overcomes the other. When we ask how do we know it was stronger, the reply is that it must be because that behaviour took place.
13) Begging the question
Suppose A and B dispute whether Christian lead better lives than non-christians. A maintains they do but B points to numerous people who go to church but beat their wives. A refuses to accept this stating that they are not 'really' Christians.
14) Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one.
Many discussions are of this type and much fruitless debate follows. "Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable" rather depends on what the word fruit is taken to mean.
15) Putting forward a tautology as if it were a factual argument.
"You agree that too much government is bad" . Too much of anything is necessarily bad or it wouldnt be too much.
16) The use of a speculative argument.
Inferring what is from what ought to be or what the speaker feels must be.
"Telepathy is not possible because a thought canot pass from one mind to another without some physical means of communication."
17) Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument.
Words such as 'capitalism' or 'democracy' can evolve during a discussion from their orginal historic meaning to modern usage and back again.
18) The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possiblities between two options presented.
"A man must be sane or insane and if he is insane he must be incapable of rational argument". Sanity is continuous.
19) The use of continuity to throw doubt on the difference between two things.
"When does a man become rich ? $100 $100000 in the bank?
20) Illegitimate demand for definition
"How exactly do you define religion?"
21) Suggestion by repeated affirmation
22) Suggestion by use of a confident manner
Say it often enough and loudly and people wil believe it
23) Suggestion by prestige
I am highly qualifies so I must be right.
24) Prestige by false credentials
I drive a Rolls Royce so I must be rich - or a conman.
25) Prestige by the use of pseudotechnical jargon
Best dealt with by asking the writer to explain himself simply
26) Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige
I am a professor and I dont understand the point you are making (- so you must be talking nonsense)
27) The use of questions to draw out damaging admissions
"Do you admit that the enemy murdered their prisoners, bombed defenseless towns, fired on the Red Cross and sunk hospital ships? Yes or No" Plainly the answer may be yes to some and no to others.
28) The appeal to mere authority
Lets ask an expert who agress with me.
29) Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones.
Start with a few statements that noone will disagree with. Patriotism. Apple Pie. Then slip in your real statement.
30) Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a form as to fit with the prejudices of the hearer.
"The French speak a strange language"
31) The use of predigested thought as premises in argument
Everybody says X. Everybody agrees Y.
32) "There is much to be said on both sides so no decision can be made either way"
Taking no action may have very real consequences too.
33) Argument by mere analogy.
"A dog cant survive by eating its own tail so a country must have trade". Analogies and models break down
34) Argument by forced analogy
A is B just as C is D where A and B are abstract and C and D are familiar. But how close is the analogy between A/B and C/D?
35) Angering an opponent so that he argues badly
"You must be an idiot to believe that"
36) Special pleading
My wage rise is an incentive to work. Your wage rise would be inflationary.
37) Commending or condemming a proposition because of its practical consequences for the hearer.
"The proposed tax rise will make you $10 a week worse off." But is it good for the country?
38) Argument by attributing prejudice to ones opponent.
It is not sufficient to to argue against Socialism by suggesting its proponents are envious of the rich.
This was written in 1930. Some of the examples are mine. Its still relevent, I think.
1) The use of emotionally toned words.
He is a terrorist; he is a freedon fighter.
2) Making a statement in which 'all' is implied but 'some' is true``
English people have bad teeth.
3) Proof by selected instances
If we are arguing for the success of private enterprise, it is not sufficent to quote a couple of examples of failed public enterprises or successful private enterprises.
4) Extension of an opponent's proposition
"If you are against fox hunting then logically you should be against all forms of hunting".
5) Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula
"the exception proves the rule"
6) Diversion to another question, to a side issue or to an irrelevancy.
One may argue against a literal interpretation of the bible by saying one does believe Jonah could be swallowed by a whale and live. His opponent counters by saying the bible says it was 'a great fish' and a whale is not a fish. Irrelevant diversion! This tactic is likely to be successful if humour is involved.
7) Proof by inconsequential argument.
"Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and again in 1939 so this proves the war was started by Churchill." There is no logical connection between the facts and the conclusion.
8) The argument that we should not make efforts against X because there is a worse evil Y.
For example as an argument against anti war demonstrations, it was stated that more deaths resulted from road accidents in some number of years than in some war. A debator may ask why politicians concern themselves with wages when the threat of overpopulation will end civilisation.
9) The recommendation of a position because it is between two extremes.
If I wished to cinvinve you that 2+2=5, I might commend it to you as the safe middle position between 2+2=4 and 2+2=6. There is no reason why truth cannot lie on one extreme.
10) Pointing out the logical correctness of an argument whose premises contain doubtful or untrue statements.
All fungi are poisonous
Mushrooms are fungi
Therefore mushrooms are poisonous.
The logic is fine but the first premise is worng so the conclusion is wrong.
11) The use of an argument of unsound logical form
All A's are B
C is a B
therefore C is an A
All planets are spherical
this ball is spherical
Therefore this ball is a planet is pretty obviously wrong
All communists are evil
he is evil
therefore he is a communist - is a common argument form in some places
12) Argument in a circle
P is true because of Q; Q is true because of P
It is argued that human action is not free because say we have a choice between standing and running away, the stronger impulse overcomes the other. When we ask how do we know it was stronger, the reply is that it must be because that behaviour took place.
13) Begging the question
Suppose A and B dispute whether Christian lead better lives than non-christians. A maintains they do but B points to numerous people who go to church but beat their wives. A refuses to accept this stating that they are not 'really' Christians.
14) Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one.
Many discussions are of this type and much fruitless debate follows. "Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable" rather depends on what the word fruit is taken to mean.
15) Putting forward a tautology as if it were a factual argument.
"You agree that too much government is bad" . Too much of anything is necessarily bad or it wouldnt be too much.
16) The use of a speculative argument.
Inferring what is from what ought to be or what the speaker feels must be.
"Telepathy is not possible because a thought canot pass from one mind to another without some physical means of communication."
17) Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument.
Words such as 'capitalism' or 'democracy' can evolve during a discussion from their orginal historic meaning to modern usage and back again.
18) The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possiblities between two options presented.
"A man must be sane or insane and if he is insane he must be incapable of rational argument". Sanity is continuous.
19) The use of continuity to throw doubt on the difference between two things.
"When does a man become rich ? $100 $100000 in the bank?
20) Illegitimate demand for definition
"How exactly do you define religion?"
21) Suggestion by repeated affirmation
22) Suggestion by use of a confident manner
Say it often enough and loudly and people wil believe it
23) Suggestion by prestige
I am highly qualifies so I must be right.
24) Prestige by false credentials
I drive a Rolls Royce so I must be rich - or a conman.
25) Prestige by the use of pseudotechnical jargon
Best dealt with by asking the writer to explain himself simply
26) Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige
I am a professor and I dont understand the point you are making (- so you must be talking nonsense)
27) The use of questions to draw out damaging admissions
"Do you admit that the enemy murdered their prisoners, bombed defenseless towns, fired on the Red Cross and sunk hospital ships? Yes or No" Plainly the answer may be yes to some and no to others.
28) The appeal to mere authority
Lets ask an expert who agress with me.
29) Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones.
Start with a few statements that noone will disagree with. Patriotism. Apple Pie. Then slip in your real statement.
30) Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a form as to fit with the prejudices of the hearer.
"The French speak a strange language"
31) The use of predigested thought as premises in argument
Everybody says X. Everybody agrees Y.
32) "There is much to be said on both sides so no decision can be made either way"
Taking no action may have very real consequences too.
33) Argument by mere analogy.
"A dog cant survive by eating its own tail so a country must have trade". Analogies and models break down
34) Argument by forced analogy
A is B just as C is D where A and B are abstract and C and D are familiar. But how close is the analogy between A/B and C/D?
35) Angering an opponent so that he argues badly
"You must be an idiot to believe that"
36) Special pleading
My wage rise is an incentive to work. Your wage rise would be inflationary.
37) Commending or condemming a proposition because of its practical consequences for the hearer.
"The proposed tax rise will make you $10 a week worse off." But is it good for the country?
38) Argument by attributing prejudice to ones opponent.
It is not sufficient to to argue against Socialism by suggesting its proponents are envious of the rich.
This was written in 1930. Some of the examples are mine. Its still relevent, I think.
I'm sure you never argue dishonestly since you are so educated
