When Did Logical Fallacies Become Debate Strategies?

 

Winning an Argument Isn't the Same as Making One.

 

In my previous article, Whatever Happened to the Art of Disagreement?, I suggested that we've become less capable of having thoughtful conversations with people who see the world differently. That led me to another question: when did logical fallacies become acceptable debate strategies?

 

When I was a student, logical fallacies were something we were taught to avoid. If you relied on one in a paper or debate, your instructor pointed it out because it weakened your argument.

Today, many of those same fallacies are celebrated. Delivered with enough confidence, they can sound persuasive, even when they rely on faulty reasoning instead of evidence.

To be fair, every one of us, including me, is susceptible to logical fallacies. The goal isn't to become better at winning arguments. It's to become better thinkers.

 

Here are a few examples we encounter every day:

 

Ad Hominem

 

Instead of responding to an idea, attack the person presenting it.

"You only think that because you're old."

The person's age tells us nothing about whether their argument is correct.

 

Straw Man

 

Misrepresent someone's position to make it easier to attack.

Person A: "Schools should teach financial literacy."

Response: "So you don't think math is important?"

That wasn't the argument.

 

Whataboutism

 

Avoid answering a question by changing the subject.

"What about when your side did..."

It may be another discussion worth having, but it doesn't answer the original question.

 

False Dilemma

 

Present a complex issue as though only two choices exist.

"Either you're with us, or you're against us."

Most important issues aren't that simple.

 

The Gish Gallop

 

Overwhelm your opponent with so many claims that responding to all of them becomes impossible. It creates the appearance of winning without actually strengthening the argument.

 

None of these are new. Aristotle wrote about flawed reasoning more than 2,000 years ago.

What has changed isn't logic. It's our willingness to reward poor reasoning because it supports conclusions we already agree with.

 

Confidence has become confused with competence. Certainty has become confused with evidence. Performance has become confused with critical thinking. Strong arguments don't fear questions. They welcome them, because the purpose of a debate should never be to defeat another person, it should be to move a little closer to the truth.

 

Leadership Reflection: Which logical fallacy do you encounter most often, and how can we encourage more thoughtful conversations?

 

Dr. Flavius A. B. Akerele III, EdD, MBA

 

#CriticalThinking #Leadership #CivilDiscourse #Communication #LeadershipReflection #LogicalFallacies #HigherEducation #LifelongLearning