This text is a table of contents and excerpts from Madsen Pirie’s book, “How to Win Every Argument.” The book provides a guide to winning arguments, including how to identify and use logical fallacies. It details numerous fallacies, offering explanations and examples of how each can be used to deceive or persuade. The excerpts showcase the diverse range of fallacies covered, illustrating their applications through various real-world scenarios. Pirie categorizes the fallacies and offers tips on their effective use. The book aims to be a practical guide for both identifying and deploying these fallacies in argumentation.

Logical Fallacies Study Guide

Quiz

Explain the fallacy of accent and provide an example. The fallacy of accent occurs when the meaning of a statement is changed by emphasizing certain words or phrases. For example, “I didn’t say he stole the money,” changes the meaning depending on which word is accented, suggesting someone else may have said it, he did not steal the money, or he stole something else.
Describe the fallacy of accident and why it is fallacious. The fallacy of accident assumes that the freak features of an exceptional case are enough to justify rejecting a general rule. This is fallacious because the exceptional features are not relevant to the general rule.
What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent? Give an example. The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when one assumes the antecedent is true because the consequent is true. For instance: “If I drop an egg, it breaks. This egg is broken, so I must have dropped it,” which ignores other possibilities like someone else dropping it.
Explain the fallacy of amphiboly and provide a sentence with this fallacy. Amphiboly is a fallacy of ambiguous construction where a statement can be interpreted in more than one way, usually due to careless grammar. An example would be, “The Duchess has a fine ship, but she has barnacles on her bottom.”
What is the argumentum ad baculum and why is it a fallacy? The argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy of using force or threats, rather than reason, to persuade someone. It is a fallacy because it introduces irrelevant material, and force does not equate to truth.
Describe the fallacy of bifurcation and provide an example. The fallacy of bifurcation falsely presents a situation as having only two options, when more possibilities exist. An example is: “Either we paint the door green, or we will be mocked and ridiculed,” which ignores other possible options.
Explain the concept of a bogus dilemma. A bogus dilemma is a fallacy that presents a situation as a true dilemma when it is not. This occurs when one or both of the given consequences do not follow or when other choices are possible that were not included in the disjunct.
What is a circulus in probando, and why is it a fallacy? A circulus in probando, or circular argument, is a fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed within the premise. This means that the argument provides no new information, and therefore, no new support for the conclusion.
Describe the fallacy of complex question (plurium interrogationum) and provide an example. A complex question (plurium interrogationum) is a fallacy in which a question includes a hidden assumption that the answerer is forced to accept. An example would be, “Why did you make your wife alter her will in your favor?”, which assumes the will was altered in the first place.
What is the conclusion that denies its premises and why is it fallacious? The conclusion that denies its premises occurs when an argument begins with certain premises but then reaches a conclusion that contradicts those original premises. This is fallacious because the conclusion is not consistent with the initial premises of the argument.

Answer Key

The fallacy of accent occurs when the meaning of a statement is changed by emphasizing certain words or phrases. For example, “I didn’t say he stole the money,” changes the meaning depending on which word is accented, suggesting someone else may have said it, he did not steal the money, or he stole something else.
The fallacy of accident assumes that the freak features of an exceptional case are enough to justify rejecting a general rule. This is fallacious because the exceptional features are not relevant to the general rule.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when one assumes the antecedent is true because the consequent is true. For instance: “If I drop an egg, it breaks. This egg is broken, so I must have dropped it,” which ignores other possibilities like someone else dropping it.
Amphiboly is a fallacy of ambiguous construction where a statement can be interpreted in more than one way, usually due to careless grammar. An example would be, “The Duchess has a fine ship, but she has barnacles on her bottom.”
The argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy of using force or threats, rather than reason, to persuade someone. It is a fallacy because it introduces irrelevant material, and force does not equate to truth.
The fallacy of bifurcation falsely presents a situation as having only two options, when more possibilities exist. An example is: “Either we paint the door green, or we will be mocked and ridiculed,” which ignores other possible options.
A bogus dilemma is a fallacy that presents a situation as a true dilemma when it is not. This occurs when one or both of the given consequences do not follow or when other choices are possible that were not included in the disjunct.
A circulus in probando, or circular argument, is a fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed within the premise. This means that the argument provides no new information, and therefore, no new support for the conclusion.
A complex question (plurium interrogationum) is a fallacy in which a question includes a hidden assumption that the answerer is forced to accept. An example would be, “Why did you make your wife alter her will in your favor?”, which assumes the will was altered in the first place.
The conclusion that denies its premises occurs when an argument begins with certain premises but then reaches a conclusion that contradicts those original premises. This is fallacious because the conclusion is not consistent with the initial premises of the argument.

Essay Questions

Discuss the role of ambiguity in the commission of logical fallacies, drawing on examples from the text.
Compare and contrast the various appeals to emotion in argumentation, such as argumentum ad misericordiam and argumentum ad populum, discussing their effectiveness and ethical implications.
Analyze how fallacies of relevance, such as argumentum ad hominem and the genetic fallacy, can undermine constructive debate.
Explain how a sophisticated understanding of logical fallacies can be utilized both to detect flawed reasoning and to construct more persuasive arguments.
Discuss the relationship between logic and rhetoric and explain the ways in which logical fallacies are sometimes used to achieve rhetorical goals.

Glossary of Key Terms

Fallacy: A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief that makes an argument invalid.
Accent (fallacy): Changing the meaning of a statement by emphasizing certain words or phrases.
Accident (fallacy): Applying a general rule to an exceptional case where it does not apply.
Affirming the Consequent: Assuming the antecedent is true because the consequent is true.
Amphiboly: Ambiguous construction of a statement due to faulty grammar.
Argumentum ad Baculum: Appealing to force or threats instead of reason.
Bifurcation: Falsely presenting a situation as having only two options.
Bogus Dilemma: Falsely presenting a situation as a true dilemma when it is not.
Circulus in Probando: Circular argument where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.
Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum): A question that includes a hidden assumption.
Conclusion which Denies Premises: A conclusion that contradicts the initial premises of the argument.
Concealed Quantification: The ambiguity of expression which permits misunderstanding the quantity under discussion.
Contradictory Premises: Using statements as premises that are in direct contradiction of each other.
Dicto Simpliciter: Applying a general rule to a specific case without considering exceptions.
Division (fallacy): Assuming that what is true of a whole must be true of its parts.
Equivocation: Using a word in two different senses in the same argument.
Exclusive Premises: A syllogism with two negative premises.
Existential Fallacy: Assuming something exists based only on a general claim about a class of things.
Ex-Post-Facto Statistics: Drawing causal inferences based solely on the fact that events occur in sequence.
Extensional Pruning: retreating from the commonly accepted meaning of a word by insisting on a strictly literal definition.
False Conversion: Reversing the terms of a statement to arrive at a false conclusion.
False Precision: Using exact numbers for inexact concepts.
Genetic Fallacy: Judging the validity or truth of something solely based on its origin.
Half-Concealed Qualification: Minimizing limits within a claim.
Hedging: Using language that allows for a retreat in definitions later on.
Hominem (Circumstantial), Argumentum ad: Appealing to the specific circumstances of the person being argued with.
Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad: Arguing that something is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.
Lapidem, Argumentum ad: Ignoring the central claim of an argument altogether, refusing to discuss the main premise.
Loaded Words: Using biased or emotive language to sway opinion.
Misericordiam, Argumentum ad: Appealing to pity instead of reasoned discourse.
Modum, Argumentum ad: Appealing to gradualism or the desire for things to happen slowly.
Nauseam, Argumentum ad: Repeating a point of view without adding support or evidence.
Numeram, Argumentum ad: Appealing to the number of people who agree to a contention as justification.
Oversimplification: Only looking at one side of a complex issue when making a decision.
Petitio Principii: Assuming the conclusion in the premises (begging the question).
Poisoning the Well: Discrediting a person or source before they can make their argument.
Quaternio Terminorum: An argument with four terms when only three are needed for a valid syllogism.
Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant issue to distract from the main point.
Reification: Treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete thing.
Secundum Quid: Generalizing from a few instances or limited information.
Shifting Ground: Changing one’s position during an argument to avoid being defeated.
Slippery Slope: Assuming that a small action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly worse consequences.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute.
Thatcher’s Blame: Blaming someone for all of the negative aspects of a situation.
Tu Quoque: Avoiding a point by pointing out hypocrisy in the arguer.
Unaccepted Enthymeme: An argument that is made with an unstated assumption that is not accepted.
Undistributed Middle: The middle term in a syllogism does not refer to the whole of its class.
Unobtainable Perfection: Rejecting a practical solution because it is not perfect.
Verecundiam, Argumentum ad: Appealing to false or irrelevant authority.
Wishful Thinking: Assuming that something is true because you want it to be true.

How to Win Every Argument: A Guide to Logical Fallacies

Okay, here’s a detailed briefing document based on the provided excerpts from “How to Win Every Argument,” focusing on the main themes, important ideas, and key quotes:

Briefing Document: “How to Win Every Argument” by Madsen Pirie

I. Core Theme: Recognizing and Utilizing Logical Fallacies

The primary theme of this work is the identification and manipulation of logical fallacies in arguments. Pirie’s book serves as a guide to not only recognize flawed reasoning, but also to use these flaws for persuasive advantage. It’s a pragmatic, almost Machiavellian approach to argumentation, focusing on winning over truth or validity. This is not a book about logic per se, but rather how logic is commonly abused, and how to turn that abuse to one’s advantage.

II. Key Concepts and Fallacies

The document presents a broad range of logical fallacies, categorized for easier understanding and application. Here’s a breakdown of some of the most important ones with key ideas and quotes:

Accent: The meaning of a statement can be altered by emphasizing different words. This manipulation introduces unintended implications that are not part of the literal statement.
Quote: “Even with so simple a phrase, a changed accent can give a markedly changed meaning.”
Quote: “The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. They form no part of the statement accepted, and have been brought in surreptitiously without supporting argument.”
Accident: An exceptional case is used to reject a general rule by supposing that a freak circumstance should invalidate the rule.
Quote: “The fallacy of accident supposes that the freak features of an exceptional case are enough to justify rejection of a general rule.”
Quote: “Almost every generalization could be objected to on the grounds that one could think of ‘accidental’ cases it did not cover.”
Affirming the Consequent: Assuming that if a consequence occurs, the antecedent must be true (an invalid form of modus ponens)
Quote: “If I drop an egg, it breaks. This egg is broken, so I must have dropped it.” (Fallacious)
Amphiboly: Ambiguous sentence construction resulting from careless grammar, where the meaning can be taken in more than one way.
Quote: “The Duchess has a fine ship, but she has barnacles on her bottom.”
Quote: “The fallacy is capable of infinite variation. Many excellent examples of amphiboly make use of the confused pronoun.”
Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to the Stick): Using force or threat to make people accept your conclusion instead of presenting logical reasoning.
Quote: “The fallacy of the argumentum ad baculum lies in its introduction of irrelevant material into the argument.”
Quote: “While force is undoubtedly effective sometimes in directing courteous attention to the speaker’s wishes, its use represents the breakdown and subversion of reason.”
Quote: “When Stalin says “dance!” a wise man dances.”
Bifurcation (False Dilemma): Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing a choice between unpleasant outcomes and your preferred one.
Quote: “The greatest use you can make of bifurcation is to offer a choice limited to something very unpleasant or the course you are advocating.”
Quote: “Either we paint the door green, or we will be mocked and ridiculed.”
Circulus in Demonstrando (Circular Argument): Using the conclusion as a premise to support the argument. The argument circles back on itself.
Quote: “It all comes down to saying that science gives us a consistent and useful look at the universe through the ring of a giant circulus.”
Quote: “‘I have the diamond, so I shall be leader.’ ‘Why should you get to keep the diamond?’ ‘Because I’m the leader, stupid.’ “
Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum): Asking a question that assumes a fact not yet established, designed to trap the respondent.
Quote: “Even oldies such as ‘Who was the lady I saw you with last night?’ and ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’ are, strictly speaking, examples of this fallacy. They preclude answers such as ‘There was none’, or ‘It didn’t.’ “
Concealed Quantification: Using ambiguous language to mislead about the quantity being discussed, often to make a weak case seem stronger.
Quote: “Very often the quantification is concealed because it sounds rather lame to make bold statements about some of a class. ‘All’ is generally preferred. “
Quote: “Garage mechanics are crooks.” (Without specifying all, some or most).
Conclusion Which Denies Premises: Contradicting your starting point with your conclusion.
Quote: “It starts by maintaining that certain things must be true, and ends up with a conclusion which flatly contradicts them.”
Quote: “He’s a real professional, but a bit of an amateur at times.”
Money as the Measure of Right: Asserting that wealth equates to correctness, which is not always true.
Quote: “Surely a man who can make £60 million in a year by recording four songs cannot be all wrong?”
Quote: “The customer is always right.” (Because they have money)
Redefinition: Changing the meaning of a word to suit one’s needs.
Quote: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Denying the Antecedent: Assuming that the non-occurrence of the antecedent means the non-occurrence of the consequent (invalid form of modus tollens).
Quote: “If I eat too much, I’ll be ill. Since I have not eaten too much, I will not be ill.”
Dicto Simpliciter (Sweeping Generalization): Applying a general rule to a specific situation without considering individual differences.
Quote: “Dicto simpliciter arises whenever individuals are made to conform to group patterns.”
Quote: “Spinach is good for growing children. Eat it up.”
Division: Assuming that what’s true of a whole is true of its parts.
Quote: “The Icelanders are the oldest nation on earth. This means that Bjork must be older than other pop stars.”
Quote: “The French are tops at rugby; Marcel is French; obviously he must be tops at rugby.”
Emotional Appeal: Using emotions rather than reason to persuade, such as appeals to pity or fear.
Quote: “Whether your appeal is to fear, envy, hatred, pride or superstition makes no difference.”
The Exception That Proves the Rule: Misunderstanding the original meaning of ‘prove’ as ‘test’, and incorrectly using an exception to strengthen the rule rather than weaken it.
Quote: “That’s the exception that proves the rule.” (Often used incorrectly).
Exclusive Premises: In a syllogism, using two negative premises which prevents drawing a valid conclusion.
Quote: “No handymen are bakers, and no bakers are fishermen, so no handymen are fishermen.”
Existential Fallacy: Incorrectly assuming the existence of things from a universal statement about them.
Quote: “Use of the existential fallacy is surprisingly easy. Most audiences will respect your modest claims if you move down from assertions about all things to claims made for only some of them.”
Ex-Post-Facto Statistics: Using statistics to create a causal relationship after the fact.
Quote: “I believe I was meant to get this job. I saw the advertisement for it in a paper the wind blew against my face in Oxford Street. I feel that something put me in that place at that time so that I would get this job.”
Extensional Pruning: Using words in their common usage, then retreating to a narrow definition when challenged.
Quote: “We are guilty of extensional pruning if we use words in their commonly accepted meaning, but retreat when challenged into a strictly literal definition.”
Quote: “/ said I’d get you another drink if I was wrong: water is another drink.”
False Conversion: Illegitimately reversing subject and predicate in a sentence, assuming “all As are B” implies “all Bs are A.”
Quote: “The claim that ‘Texas rabbits are animals which grow to more than a metre long’ is skilfully ambiguous. It is not clear whether it refers to some Texas rabbits or all of them. Your surreptitious false conversion would then leave your audience convinced that any animal in Texas more than a metre in length must be a rabbit.”
False Precision: Using exact numbers with inexact notions to create a false sense of accuracy.
Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing something based on its origins or associations, instead of the merits of the idea.
Quote: “The objections to the Council’s new bus timetable come only from private property developers, and can be ignored.”
Quote: “Tinkering with genes is fascist talk. That’s what Hitler tried to do.”
Half-Concealed Qualification: Minimizing limiting qualifications so they are not emphasized.
Quote: “Practically every single case of monetary expansion is followed within 16 months by an attendant general price rise of the same proportions.”
Hedging: Using ambiguous language to allow for a change in definition to avoid challenges.
Quote: “Hedging involves the advance preparation for a definitional retreat.”
Quote: “All I said was that I’d be home at a reasonable hour. I think that three o’clock in the morning is a reasonable hour in view of what I’ve been doing.”
Hominem (Circumstantial), Argumentum ad: Rejecting a claim based on the speaker’s specific circumstances and interests, rather than their arguments.
Quote: “You can’t accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove the money-lenders from the temple.”
Quote: “Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
Ignorantiam, argumentum ad: Asserting something is true because it has not been proven false, and vice versa.
Illicit Process: Drawing conclusions that improperly extend beyond a specific group in a premise, by assuming that a term has been distributed when it has not.
Irrelevant Humour: Using jokes to divert attention and avoid addressing the core arguments.
Lapidem, Argumentum ad: Refusing to discuss an argument’s central claim, simply dismissing it without engaging with the evidence.
Quote: “He’s a friend of mine. I won’t hear a word spoken against him.”
Loaded Words: Using words with emotional connotations to influence an audience.
Quote: “HITLER SUMMONS WAR LORDS! M.DALADIER CONSULTS DEFENCE CHIEFS”
Miserkordiam, argumentum ad: Appealing to pity instead of reason.
Quote: “In asking yourself if this man is to be convicted, ask yourself what it will mean for him to be locked up in prison…”
Modum, Argumentum ad: Appealing to the audience’s desire for gradual change and rejecting sudden moves.
Nauseam, Argumentum ad: Trying to win an argument simply by repeating the claim.
Quote: “Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice; what I tell you three times is true.”
Numeram, argumentum ad: Appealing to popularity or consensus to claim that something is true.
Quote: “Everybody’s smoking Whifters, why don’t you?”
One-Sided Assessment: Looking only at one side of an issue, either the positives or the negatives, not both.
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question): Assuming the conclusion in the premises.
Poisoning the Well: Damaging an opponent’s credibility to make the audience reject their claims.
Quote: “They have been trying that in Sweden since 1955, and look what’s happened: suicides, moral degeneracy and drunks everywhere. Do we want that here?”
Quaternio Terminorum: Using a four-term argument, where a middle term changes and does not link the two premises.
Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main argument.
Quote: “‘You never remember my birthday.’ ‘Did I ever tell you what beautiful eyes you have?’ “
Secundum Quid (Hasty Generalization): Drawing a conclusion from too few cases or unrepresentative examples.
Shifting Ground: Rapidly changing the subject or the definition of key terms in an argument to escape scrutiny.
Slippery Slope: Arguing that an initial action will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences.
Special Pleading: Asserting exceptions for yourself that you would not grant to others.
Thatcher’s Blame: Blaming a prominent figure for problems in an argument.
Tu Quoque: Rejecting an argument because the person making it is inconsistent, hypocritical.
Quote: “Holier-than-thou.”
Unaccepted Enthymemes: Using an argument that depends on an unstated assumption that is not accepted by the other party.
Undistributed Middle: In a syllogism, using a middle term that is not universal or distributed.
Unobtainable Perfection: Rejecting a solution because it is not absolutely perfect.
Verecundiam, argumentum ad: Appealing to false authority to support your claim.
Quote: “The winning of an Oscar for excellence in motion pictures is widely recognized as a qualification to speak on such matters as world poverty and American foreign policy.”
Wishful Thinking: Basing beliefs on what one wishes were true rather than on evidence.

III. Pragmatic Use of Fallacies

Pirie isn’t just describing fallacies. He is showing you how to use them in your own arguments. His approach is cynical, suggesting that one can often win by manipulating logic rather than by being logically correct. The text provides numerous examples, not only of flawed reasoning but also of how these flaws can be employed to your advantage in various scenarios from public speaking to everyday conversations.

IV. Implications and Application

Critical Thinking: The book serves as a practical guide to critical thinking, helping the reader become a more discerning evaluator of arguments.
Persuasion: The guide provides tools to not only dismantle poor arguments but to construct persuasive ones based on the flawed logic of others, a manipulative but potent tactic.
Rhetorical Skill: By identifying and understanding these fallacies, readers can become more persuasive and articulate speakers or writers.
Recognizing Manipulation: The book is a defense against being manipulated by others, as it highlights how fallacies are often used to sway opinions.

V. Caveats

While Pirie’s guide is insightful, it is important to note that the book’s focus is on winning rather than on seeking truth. This cynical stance may be considered unethical or manipulative by some. A responsible approach would use this knowledge to understand the flaws in others’ arguments, and in one’s own, but also to strive to engage in more logically sound and ethical debates.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

Logical Fallacies: Unveiling Faulty Arguments

How can the way words are emphasized change their meaning in an argument?

The fallacy of accent demonstrates how altering the stress on specific words or phrases can drastically shift a statement’s meaning. For example, “Light your cigarette” can be an instruction, a suggestion to light it instead of something else, a way to differentiate who lights their cigarette, or an admonition not to use it for another purpose, just by accenting different words. These shifts bring additional, unauthorized implications into the argument that aren’t supported by the original statement.

What is the ‘fallacy of accident’ and how does it affect attempts to create general rules or definitions?

The fallacy of accident occurs when the exceptional or freak features of a case are used to reject a general rule. It ignores the fact that some cases may be unusual and allowable exceptions, not invalidating the rule itself. The fallacy targets attempts at universality, where one tries to establish watertight definitions for things like ‘truth’ or ‘justice.’ Opponents exploit this by constantly presenting ‘accidental’ cases that are clearly exceptions, thereby undermining the general statement.

What are some common errors people make with ‘if…then’ statements?

The error with ‘if…then’ statements can occur when one affirms the consequent (the “then” part) or denies the antecedent (the “if” part). For example, the statement “If I drop an egg, it breaks” is valid if you say “I dropped the egg, so it broke” (affirming the antecedent). However, it is fallacious to say “The egg is broken, so I must have dropped it” (affirming the consequent) because there could be other reasons for the egg being broken. Similarly, “Since I have not eaten too much, I will not be ill” is fallacious because other things can cause illness.

What are ‘amphiboly’ and ‘bifurcation’ and how are they used to create faulty arguments?

Amphiboly is the fallacy of ambiguous construction, where the whole meaning of a statement is unclear, often due to poor grammar or pronoun use. For example, “I met the ambassador riding his horse. He was snorting and steaming…” it is not clear if ‘he’ refers to the ambassador or the horse. Bifurcation, on the other hand, is the presentation of only two options, as if they are the only possibilities. This “false dilemma” often ignores or conceals other viable options. For example “If we import goods, we send our jobs abroad; if we export goods, we send our property abroad.” ignoring that you can do both, or neither.

What is ‘argumentum ad baculum’ and why is it considered a breakdown of reason?

The argumentum ad baculum is a fallacy that uses force or threat instead of reason to persuade. Instead of providing evidence to support a claim, the arguer resorts to intimidation or coercion to force compliance. While it can be effective in achieving a desired action, it represents a complete breakdown of logical discussion and an abandonment of rational discourse, replacing it with power.

How does the fallacy of ‘dicto simpliciter’ work, and how is it used to manipulate others?

Dicto simpliciter arises when we apply a general rule or characteristic to an individual within a group, without accounting for individual differences. It’s a move to make individuals conform to group patterns, failing to permit for individual qualities. For instance, “All teenagers are rebellious. Since he’s a teenager, he must be rebellious too”, ignores that not all teenagers are rebellious. This fallacy is used to place people into stereotypical molds, using group membership to make assumptions about individuals.

What is ‘petitio principii’, and what are some ways it can be disguised in an argument?

Petitio principii, also known as “begging the question,” is the fallacy of assuming the conclusion in the premises of an argument. In other words, the argument uses the very point it’s trying to prove as evidence for itself, creating a circular and uninformative argument. It is often disguised through skillful word choice, using words with hidden assumptions built into them, like “purpose” or “promise”, giving the appearance of a valid argument when the core claim is just restating the conclusion.

What is the role of emotional manipulation in fallacious arguments?

Fallacious arguments often exploit emotions like pity, fear, or envy to bypass rational analysis. Appeals to emotion divert attention from the lack of evidence or logic. Instead of relying on reason, the arguer uses emotional manipulation to gain acceptance for their position. For example, an argumentum ad misericordiam appeals to pity, such as asking “how can we not hire Jeeves, imagine his wife and children this christmas?”. It is not a valid argument for hiring the groundskeeper if they are not the best candidate for the job. Other fallacies appeal to a desire for gradualism (ad modum), or the desire to support popular ideas (ad populum) all bypassing reason and making faulty arguments.

How to Win Every Argument: Fallacies & Rhetoric

Okay, here is the detailed timeline and cast of characters based on the provided text from “How to Win Every Argument”:

Timeline of Main Events

This source is not a historical text but rather a guide to logical fallacies and argumentation. Therefore, the “events” are primarily the examples of fallacies, illustrative scenarios, and the development of ideas about rhetoric and logic. Here’s a thematic breakdown of the “events” discussed:

Ancient Philosophers’ Pursuit of Truth & Justice: The text references Plato’s search for justice and his engagement with arguments that attempt to challenge universal truths. John Stuart Mill’s efforts to justify liberty are also mentioned, highlighting historical attempts to define these abstract concepts and the fallacies that can undermine those efforts.
The Development of Formal Logic & Argumentation: The text details various logical fallacies, such as Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent, Undistributed Middle, Exclusive Premises, and Quaternio Terminorum, which represent centuries of formalized study and thought on how people can misuse logic when making arguments.
Examples from History and Culture: The book is filled with examples of fallacies being employed:
Croesus and the Oracle’s ambiguous prophecy.
Lord Nelson’s famous cry “Westminster Abbey or victory” as an example of bifurcation.
Stalin’s use of the argumentum ad baculum, his question about the Pope’s divisions.
Sir William Browne’s accusation of political opponents using ad baculum diplomacy.
Examples of fallacious arguments from politics, marketing, and everyday life are used to illustrate the different kinds of fallacies.
Dr. Johnson’s argumentum ad lapidem, or refusal to discuss the merits of an argument.
George Bernard Shaw’s engagement with a woman in a discussion of principle and price.
Margaret Thatcher is discussed as an example of how people are blamed or targeted for any and all societal issues.
Fallacious Practices in Different Contexts: The book shows how fallacies occur in different areas like:
Politics and Diplomacy: Countries using threats (ad baculum), political arguments with misinterpretations of data, and politicians hedging their statements.
Marketing: Presenting statistical information that misleads, using loaded words, and appealing to popular opinion (ad populum)
Everyday Life: Misusing language through accent and ambiguity, using ad misericordiam or ad hominem arguments, committing hasty generalization or division, and using red herrings to distract.
Contemporary Language and Logical Confusion: The text also provides some examples that reference popular culture and recent history, implying a modern awareness of these types of arguments:
Examples using sports, pop culture, and technology to explain the fallacies.
Use of economic theory to discuss fallacious arguments used in economics, like the National Plan’s conclusions based on flawed aggregation of data, or how economists engage in hedging.
Examples of linguistic analysis are used to show how arguments can be undermined.
The text includes examples of how government can manipulate language for political purposes.

Cast of Characters (with brief bios):

Note: Most of these “characters” are either historical figures, hypothetical people used as examples, or types of people, rather than full biographical individuals.

Madsen Pirie: (Author) The author of “How to Win Every Argument.” A writer who has expertise in logic, argumentation, and the use of rhetoric. This is all that can be derived from the document itself.
Thomas, Samuel, and Rosalind: (Dedicatees) Named by Pirie as recipients of the book’s dedication.
Eamonn Butler and John O’Sullivan: (Acknowledgments) Acknowledged by Pirie for helpful suggestions related to his work, these appear to be colleagues, or friends, in the field of study.
Tom Lees, Steve Masty, Sam Nguyen, and Xander Stephenson: (Acknowledgments) Acknowledged for assistance with the book’s preparation. These appear to be editors, researchers, or assistants.
Plato: (Philosopher) Ancient Greek philosopher whose writings are referenced to illustrate the challenge of defining abstract concepts like justice. He appears here primarily to be discussed in the context of his failed attempts to do that.
John Stuart Mill: (Philosopher) 19th-century British philosopher and economist, mentioned in the text as an example of someone who struggled to justify liberty and frequently encountered objections.
Croesus: (Historical Figure) The King of Lydia who famously consulted the Oracle of Delphi; mentioned in the book as an example of the fallacy of amphiboly (ambiguous construction).
Lord Nelson: (Historical Figure) British Admiral remembered for his naval victories. He is referenced here as a maker of an example of the fallacy of bifurcation with his famous statement.
Joseph Stalin: (Historical Figure) The former dictator of the Soviet Union, used as an example of the use of argumentum ad baculum, or the appeal to force.
Nikita Krushchev: (Historical Figure) Former Soviet Premier who made an important observation on Stalin’s use of the ad baculum.
Pope: (Historical Figure) The Pope is referenced as a person who lacks military divisions when Stalin asked, “How many divisions has the Pope?”
Sir William Browne: (Historical Figure) Described as an idealist who accused his political opponents of using ad baculum diplomacy.
Lord Denning: (Legal Figure) A famous English judge mentioned in relation to the use of loaded words in legal settings. This is not directly attributed to Lord Denning, but only used as an example of a type of strategy.
Adolf Hitler: (Historical Figure) The dictator of Nazi Germany used as a symbol of evil who used genetic fallacies for nefarious purposes.
Genghis Khan & Attila the Hun: (Historical Figures) Both notorious for their brutality, these figures are mentioned as similar to Hitler for the purpose of the genetic fallacy.
Princess Diana: (Historical Figure) She is paired with Mary Poppins as an example of false appeal to sentiment.
Mary Poppins: (Fictional Character) Paired with Princess Diana as an example of false appeal to sentiment.
Humpty Dumpty: (Fictional Character) A character in Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carrol, quoted by Pirie as an example of a person redefining words to mean what they want.
Dr. Johnson: (Historical Figure) Well-known English writer and lexicographer; in this text, he’s cited as the originator of the argumentum ad lapidem.
George Bernard Shaw: (Historical Figure) The Irish playwright is mentioned in a dialogue designed to explain the fallacy of the slippery slope.
Margaret Thatcher: (Historical Figure) Former Prime Minister of the UK, used as an example of the “Thatcher’s blame” fallacy where people are blamed for everything.
Bill: (Hypothetical Person) Used in the example of the fallacy of unaccepted enthymeme.
Flight-Lieutenant Robinson: (Hypothetical Person) Used as an example in the fallacy of Division.
Various Hypothetical People: The text also includes many other hypothetical people used to illustrate the various fallacies, such as: the man who lends weapons, the duchess with barnacles, the person making a will, and various others. These people are more like “roles” within a hypothetical situation rather than fully-fleshed out characters, and there is no information available about them beyond that.

This timeline and cast provide a framework for understanding the themes of argument and logic explored in the text. Let me know if you need any more information.

Logical Fallacies: A Practical Guide

Winning arguments is based on sound reasoning, which is undermined by logical fallacies [1]. Fallacies can be used to deceive, but identifying them can be a source of pleasure [1]. A practical guide to winning arguments involves learning how to recognize and use fallacies, and how to defend against them [2-4]. The book lists fallacies alphabetically, but they can be classified into five major types [5, 6]:

Formal Fallacies: These have errors in the structure of the logic [6].
Informal Fallacies of Relevance (Omission): These fallacies omit relevant material [7].
Informal Fallacies of Relevance (Intrusion): These fallacies bring in irrelevant material [8, 9].
Informal Fallacies of Relevance (Presumption): These fallacies rely on unwarranted assumptions [9, 10].

Some Specific Fallacies

Abusive Analogy: This fallacy uses comparisons that are offensive or invite abuse [4, 11].
Accent: This fallacy changes the meaning of a phrase by emphasizing certain words [12-16].
Amphiboly: This fallacy uses ambiguous grammatical structures to create confusion [17].
Analogical Fallacy: This fallacy assumes that things similar in one respect are similar in others [18, 19].
Argumentum ad Antiquitam: This fallacy equates older with better [20, 21].
Apriorism: This fallacy uses a preconceived judgment against the evidence [22-25].
Argumentum ad Baculum: This fallacy uses force or threats to persuade [25-30].
Bifurcation: This fallacy limits choices, denying extra options [30-32].
Blinding with Science: This fallacy uses technical jargon to impress rather than clarify [33-35].
Bogus Dilemma: This fallacy presents a false choice between two alternatives [36-39].
Circulus in Probando: This fallacy uses circular reasoning [40-43].
Complex Question: This fallacy combines several questions into one [44].
Composition: This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole [45, 46].
Concealed Quantification: This fallacy uses vague language to make a weak case stronger [46, 47].
Argumentum ad Crumenam: This fallacy assumes money is a measure of correctness [47-51].
Damning the Alternatives: This fallacy argues for one option by denigrating the others [52-56].
Definitional Retreat: This fallacy changes the meaning of a word to avoid refutation [57-59].
Denying the Antecedent: This fallacy rejects a conclusion because the premise is not met [60].
Dicto Simpliciter: This fallacy makes sweeping generalizations [60, 61].
Division: This fallacy assumes that what is true of the whole is true of the parts [61, 62].
Emotional Appeals: These fallacies use emotions instead of reason [63-68].
Equivocation: This fallacy uses a word with different meanings in an argument [68-72].
Every Schoolboy Knows: This fallacy assumes that a claim is true because it is supposedly common knowledge [72-75].
The Exception that Proves the Rule: This fallacy uses an exception to justify a rule [76-78].
Exclusive Premises: This fallacy draws a conclusion from two negative premises [78-80].
Existential Fallacy: This fallacy makes claims about all members of a class, without knowing if the class exists [80, 81].
Ex-post-facto Statistics: This fallacy uses statistics after the fact to support a claim [81, 82].
Extensional Pruning: This fallacy limits the meaning of a statement after the fact [82-84].
False Precision: This fallacy uses unjustified precision to give more confidence in assertions [84-86].
The Gambler’s Fallacy: This fallacy assumes past events influence future independent events [86, 87].
The Genetic Fallacy: This fallacy dismisses an argument based on its source [88-90].
Half-Concealed Qualification: This fallacy makes a restricted claim while discussing it as a general claim [90-92].
Hedging: This fallacy uses ambiguous language to change the meaning later [93-95].
Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive): This fallacy attacks the arguer instead of the argument [95-102].
Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial): This fallacy appeals to the arguer’s circumstances instead of evidence [102-106].
Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad: This fallacy argues a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false [70, 73, 105, 107].
Ignoratio Elenchi: This fallacy proves a conclusion that is not relevant to the argument [106-109].
Illicit Process: This fallacy draws a conclusion that is not justified by the premises [107, 110-112].
Irrelevant Humor: This fallacy uses humor to divert attention from the argument [107, 112-117].
Argumentum ad Lapidem: This fallacy dismisses an argument without discussion [107, 117-121].
Argumentum ad Lazarum: This fallacy assumes the poor are more virtuous or correct [107, 121-123].
Loaded Words: This fallacy uses biased language to influence attitudes [107, 123-129].
Argumentum ad Misericordiam: This fallacy uses pity instead of reason [107, 129-133].
Argumentum ad Nauseam: This fallacy uses constant repetition to make a claim seem true [107, 133-137].
Non-Anticipation: This fallacy rejects a new idea because it hasn’t been anticipated [107, 137-140].
Argumentum ad Novitam: This fallacy assumes new is better [107, 140-146].
Argumentum ad Numeram: This fallacy equates popular support with correctness [107, 146-152].
One-Sided Assessment: This fallacy only considers one side of an issue [107, 152-157].
Petitio Principii: This fallacy assumes the conclusion in the premise [107, 157-162].
Poisoning the Well: This fallacy discredits the opposition before they speak [162-167].
Argumentum ad Populum: This fallacy appeals to popular attitudes instead of presenting evidence [163, 167-170].
Positive Conclusion from Negative Premise: This fallacy draws a positive conclusion from a negative premise [163].
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: This fallacy assumes that because one event follows another, the first caused the second [163, 170, 171].
Quaternio Terminorum: This fallacy is caused by using four terms in a three-line argument [163].
The Red Herring: This fallacy introduces irrelevant information to divert attention [163, 172-175].
Refuting the Example: This fallacy discredits an argument by discrediting the example [163, 175-180].
Reification: This fallacy treats abstract concepts as concrete things [163, 180-182].
The Runaway Train: This fallacy pushes a general argument to an absurd conclusion [163, 182-185].
Secundum Quid: This fallacy makes a hasty generalization [163, 185, 186].
Shifting Ground: This fallacy changes the substance of an argument while claiming continuity [163, 186-189].
Shifting the Burden of Proof: This fallacy requires the opponent to disprove a claim [163, 189, 190].
The Slippery Slope: This fallacy assumes an initial action will lead to a series of increasingly negative events [163].
Special Pleading: This fallacy makes an exception for a particular case without justification [163, 191-193].
The Straw Man: This fallacy misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack [163, 193, 194].
Argumentum ad Temperantiam: This fallacy assumes the moderate view is always correct [163, 194-202].
Thatcher’s Blame: This fallacy blames an individual for any outcome, regardless of its nature [163, 203-205].
Trivial Objections: This fallacy opposes a claim based on minor aspects [163, 205-207].
Tu Quoque: This fallacy dismisses an argument because the arguer is inconsistent [207-211].
Unaccepted Enthymemes: This fallacy omits an important element of the argument [208, 211, 212].
The Undistributed Middle: This fallacy draws a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because the middle term is not distributed [208, 212-216].
Unobtainable Perfection: This fallacy rejects an option because it is not perfect [208, 216-218].
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: This fallacy uses false authority [208, 218-223].
Wishful Thinking: This fallacy accepts or rejects a claim based on what one wants to be true [6, 208, 223, 224].

By understanding these fallacies, one can improve their ability to argue effectively and avoid being deceived [1, 3, 4].

Logical Fallacies: A Compendium

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that can undermine arguments [1]. They can be used intentionally to deceive, or may be committed unintentionally due to ignorance of logical reasoning, the nature of evidence, or what counts as relevant material [2, 3]. Understanding fallacies is useful for both defending against them and using them effectively [1, 4].

Types of Fallacies

The sources categorize fallacies into five main types [5-7]:

Formal Fallacies: These involve errors in the structure of an argument [6, 7]. The logic itself is defective [8]. Examples include affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, the undistributed middle, and quaternio terminorum [7, 9].
Informal Fallacies of Relevance (Omission): These occur when relevant information is left out [10]. Examples include the bogus dilemma, definitional retreat, and shifting the burden of proof [9, 10].
Informal Fallacies of Relevance (Intrusion): These involve the introduction of irrelevant material into an argument [11]. Examples include emotional appeals, argumentum ad hominem, and the red herring [9, 11].
Informal Fallacies of Relevance (Presumption): These fallacies are based on unwarranted assumptions [12]. Examples include the analogical fallacy, petitio principii, and post hoc ergo propter hoc [9, 12].
Informal Linguistic Fallacies: These use ambiguities of language to admit error [8, 10]. Examples include accent, amphiboly, and equivocation [9, 10].

Specific Fallacies

The sources provide an extensive list of specific fallacies, including:

Abusive Analogy: Using a comparison that is intended to be offensive or abusive [4, 13].
Accent: Changing the meaning of a statement by emphasizing different words [14, 15].
Accident: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case [16].
Affirming the Consequent: Assuming that if the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true [17, 18].
Amphiboly: Using an ambiguous grammatical construction [19].
Analogical Fallacy: Assuming that things similar in one way are similar in other ways [20].
Argumentum ad Antiquitam: Assuming older is better [21, 22].
Apriorism: Using a preconceived judgment against the evidence [23].
Argumentum ad Baculum: Using force or threats to persuade [24].
Bifurcation: Presenting only two alternatives when more exist [25].
Blinding with Science: Using jargon to impress rather than clarify [26].
Bogus Dilemma: Presenting a false choice between two alternatives [27, 28].
Circulus in Probando: Using circular reasoning [29].
Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum): Combining several questions into one [30].
Composition: Assuming that what is true of the parts is true of the whole [8, 9].
Concealed Quantification: Using vague language to make a weak case stronger [9, 31].
Argumentum ad Crumenam: Assuming money is a measure of correctness [9, 32].
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Assuming that because two events occur simultaneously, one causes the other [33].
Damning the Alternatives: Arguing for one option by denigrating the others [34].
Definitional Retreat: Changing the meaning of a word to avoid refutation [35].
Denying the Antecedent: Rejecting a conclusion because the premise is not met [36, 37].
Dicto Simpliciter: Making a sweeping generalization [38].
Division: Assuming that what is true of the whole is true of the parts [8, 9].
Emotional Appeals: Using emotions instead of reason [9, 39].
Equivocation: Using a word with different meanings in an argument [40].
Every Schoolboy Knows: Assuming a claim is true because it is supposedly common knowledge [41].
The Exception that Proves the Rule: Using an exception to justify a rule [42, 43].
Exclusive Premises: Drawing a conclusion from two negative premises [44].
Existential Fallacy: Making claims about all members of a class without knowing if the class exists [45].
Ex-post-facto Statistics: Applying probability laws to past events [46].
Extensional Pruning: Using a restricted definition after the fact to escape weakness in position [47, 48].
False Conversion: Invalidly converting a statement by exchanging the subject and predicate [49, 50].
False Precision: Using unjustified precision to give more confidence in assertions [51].
The Gambler’s Fallacy: Assuming past events influence future independent events [52].
The Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing an argument based on its source [53].
Half-Concealed Qualification: Making a restricted claim while discussing it as a general claim [31].
Hedging: Using ambiguous language to change the meaning later [54].
Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive): Attacking the arguer instead of the argument [54].
Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial): Appealing to the arguer’s circumstances instead of evidence [55].
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Arguing a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false [56].
Ignoratio Elenchi: Proving a conclusion that is not relevant to the argument [57].
Illicit Process: Drawing a conclusion that is not justified by the premises [57, 58].
Irrelevant Humor: Using humor to divert attention from the argument [59, 60].
Argumentum ad Lapidem: Dismissing an argument without discussion [61].
Argumentum ad Lazarum: Assuming the poor are more virtuous or correct [62].
Loaded Words: Using biased language to influence attitudes [63].
Argumentum ad Misericordiam: Using pity instead of reason [64].
Argumentum ad Nauseam: Using constant repetition to make a claim seem true [65].
Non-Anticipation: Rejecting a new idea because it hasn’t been anticipated [66].
Argumentum ad Novitam: Assuming new is better [67].
Argumentum ad Numeram: Equating popular support with correctness [68].
One-Sided Assessment: Only considering one side of an issue [69].
Petitio Principii: Assuming the conclusion in the premise (begging the question) [70, 71].
Poisoning the Well: Discrediting the opposition before they speak [72].
Argumentum ad Populum: Appealing to popular attitudes instead of presenting evidence [73].
Positive Conclusion from Negative Premise: Drawing a positive conclusion from a negative premise [74].
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the second [75].
Quaternio Terminorum: Using four terms in a three-line argument [76].
The Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant information to divert attention [77].
Refuting the Example: Discrediting an argument by discrediting the example [78].
Reification: Treating abstract concepts as concrete things [79].
The Runaway Train: Pushing a general argument to an absurd conclusion [80].
Secundum Quid: Making a hasty generalization [81].
Shifting Ground: Changing the substance of an argument while claiming continuity [82].
Shifting the Burden of Proof: Requiring the opponent to disprove a claim [83].
The Slippery Slope: Assuming an initial action will lead to a series of increasingly negative events [84].
Special Pleading: Making an exception for a particular case without justification [85].
The Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack [86].
Argumentum ad Temperantiam: Assuming the moderate view is always correct [87].
Thatcher’s Blame: Blaming an individual for any outcome, regardless of its nature [88].
Trivial Objections: Opposing a claim based on minor aspects [89].
Tu Quoque: Dismissing an argument because the arguer is inconsistent [90].
Unaccepted Enthymemes: Omitting an important element of the argument [91].
The Undistributed Middle: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because the middle term is not distributed [92].
Unobtainable Perfection: Rejecting an option because it is not perfect [93].
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Using false authority [94].
Wishful Thinking: Accepting or rejecting a claim based on what one wants to be true [95].

By recognizing these fallacies, you can enhance your ability to construct sound arguments and to identify weaknesses in the arguments of others [1, 4]. The sources emphasize that learning to use these fallacies can also help build an immunity to them [96].

Sound Reasoning and Logical Fallacies

The sources describe a variety of argument techniques, both sound and fallacious, that can be used to persuade others, and also to defend against manipulation. Many of these techniques involve the use of logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning that can undermine the validity of an argument [1].

Here’s a breakdown of argument techniques, as discussed in the sources:

1. Sound Reasoning:

The foundation of winning an argument is sound reasoning [1].
This involves constructing arguments that are logically valid and supported by relevant evidence [1].

2. Logical Fallacies:

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that can make an argument invalid [1]. They can be used to persuade or deceive, intentionally or unintentionally [1].
The sources categorize fallacies into five major types [2]:
Formal Fallacies: Errors in the structure of the argument itself [3].
Informal (Linguistic) Fallacies: Use ambiguities of language to deceive [3, 4].
Informal (Relevance – Omission) Fallacies: Relevant information is left out of the argument [4].
Informal (Relevance – Intrusion) Fallacies: Irrelevant material is introduced into an argument [5].
Informal (Relevance – Presumption) Fallacies: The argument is based on unwarranted assumptions [6].
The sources list many specific fallacies, providing examples of each [7-11]. For example:
Abusive Analogy: Using a comparison to bring someone into scorn or disrepute [12].
Accent: Changing the meaning of a statement by emphasizing different words [13].
Analogical Fallacy: Assuming that things similar in one respect are similar in others [14].
Argumentum ad Baculum: Using force or threats to persuade [15].
Bifurcation: Presenting only two alternatives when others exist [16].
Circulus in Probando: Using circular reasoning [17].
Complex Question: Combining several questions into one [18].
Emotional Appeals: Using emotions to sway an argument, rather than reason [19].
Equivocation: Using a word with different meanings in an argument [20].
Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive): Attacking the arguer instead of the argument [21].
Argumentum ad Populum: Appealing to popular attitudes instead of presenting evidence [22].
The Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant information to divert attention [23].
The Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack [24].
Tu Quoque: Undermining an argument by claiming its proponent is guilty of the same thing [25].
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Appealing to false authority [26].

3. Techniques for Using Fallacies

The sources suggest techniques for using fallacies to deceive:
Use Long Words: Use complex language or jargon to make arguments sound more impressive [27].
Use Loaded Words: Employ biased language to influence attitudes [28].
Repeat Claims: Use constant repetition to make a claim seem more true [29].
Shift the Ground: Change the substance of the argument while pretending to maintain consistency [30].
Poison the Well: Discredit the opposition before they have a chance to speak [31].
Create a Straw Man: Misrepresent the opponent’s position and then attack the misrepresentation [24].
Use Irrelevant Humor: Introduce jokes or anecdotes to distract from the main point [32].
Appeal to Emotions: Use emotional language to sway the audience, rather than logical arguments [19].
Shift the Burden of Proof: Insist that the opponent disprove a claim, instead of providing evidence to support it [33].

4. Techniques for Defending Against Fallacies

The sources suggest several techniques to defend against the use of fallacies:
Recognize Fallacies: Learning to recognize common fallacies will help you identify when they are being used [1].
Challenge Assumptions: Examine the underlying assumptions of an argument and question whether they are valid [6].
Examine Evidence: Ensure that arguments are based on solid evidence [1].
Identify Irrelevance: Look for irrelevant material being introduced into the argument [34].
Focus on the Main Point: Stay focused on the central claim of the argument, rather than being distracted by side issues [35].
Avoid Emotional Manipulation: Be aware of attempts to use emotion instead of reason to persuade you [19].
Point out Inconsistencies: Identify when someone changes the substance of their argument or is inconsistent in their claims [36].

5. Other Argument Tactics

Use Latin Tags: Using Latin names for fallacies can make the accuser appear more erudite [2].
Use Analogies: Analogies can be powerful communication tools [37]. However, do not assume that things similar in one way are similar in all ways [37].
Appeal to Authority: Citing authorities can be helpful, but ensure they are genuine experts on the topic [26].

By understanding both sound and fallacious argument techniques, you can enhance your ability to engage in effective and honest discourse. The sources emphasize that knowledge of fallacies is crucial for both constructing compelling arguments and defending yourself against manipulation [38].

Persuasive Language Techniques and Fallacies

The sources discuss several aspects of persuasive language, often in the context of logical fallacies and how they are used to manipulate or influence an audience [1-3]. Here’s a breakdown of persuasive language techniques identified in the sources:

Loaded Words: The sources emphasize that using biased or prejudiced terms can influence the outcome of a judgment [4]. The goal is to create a more favorable or hostile attitude toward something than the plain facts would warrant [4, 5]. For instance, describing leaders as “war lords” versus “defense chiefs” conveys different attitudes [4]. Near synonyms can carry subtle nuances of meaning which can be used to influence attitudes to a statement [5].
Emotional Appeals: Using emotional appeals is a common tactic to bypass reason [6-8]. The sources identify several emotional appeals including appeals to fear (argumentum ad metum), envy (ad invidiam), hatred (ad odium), superstition (ad superstitionem), and pride (ad superbiam) [9].
Blinding with Science: This technique involves using technical or scientific jargon to give the impression of expertise, even when the content is not supported by evidence [10, 11]. The use of complex jargon can make it difficult for an audience to challenge what is being said [11, 12].
Repetition (Argumentum ad Nauseam): Repeating a point of view, even without additional evidence, can erode the critical faculty, making an audience more likely to accept it [13]. This tactic aims to wear down resistance or deceive people into thinking objections have been addressed [14]. Advertisers use this by repeating a claim, building up a habit of association [15].
Use of Humor: While humor can entertain, it can also be used to distract from the central argument [16]. The fallacy lies in using humor to divert attention from the rights and wrongs of an issue [16, 17].
Use of Analogies: Analogies are used as tools of communication, but it is fallacious to assume that things that are similar in one respect are similar in all respects [18, 19]. An analogy may suggest a line of inquiry but does not provide a basis for establishing discoveries [19].
Appeals to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitam): This involves using the age or tradition of something as a reason to accept it, regardless of its merits [20]. This fallacy is often employed in advertising or in resistance to change [21].
Appeals to Novelty (Argumentum ad Novitam): Conversely, something new is not necessarily better, and to argue that it is simply because it’s new is a fallacy [22]. The sources note the advertising industry’s use of “new” to appeal to this fallacy [23].
Appeals to Popularity (Argumentum ad Populum): This fallacy involves appealing to popular attitudes or beliefs instead of presenting relevant material [24]. It often relies on emotional appeals and is used by mob orators to raise emotional temperature [25].
Use of “Every Schoolboy Knows”: This tactic involves assuring the audience that a claim is widely known (often by children), thereby discouraging questions and passing off dubious assertions unquestioned [26, 27].
Half-Concealed Qualification: This technique uses words to express a limited claim, but the stress and construction make the qualifications get overlooked [28]. The limits are stated, but the audience barely notices them when discussing a more general statement [28].

The sources suggest that persuasive language often involves manipulating the audience’s emotions, associations, or preconceptions. The use of fallacies can make arguments seem convincing, even when they are logically flawed [2, 3]. Understanding these techniques is important for both constructing effective arguments and defending against manipulation.

Deceptive Argumentation Tactics

The sources detail a range of deceptive tactics employed in arguments, often through the use of logical fallacies and persuasive language techniques. These tactics can be used intentionally to mislead, or sometimes unintentionally due to a lack of understanding of sound reasoning [1, 2]. Here’s a breakdown of deceptive tactics from the sources:

Use of Logical Fallacies: The core of many deceptive tactics is the exploitation of logical fallacies [1]. These flaws in reasoning can make an argument seem valid when it is not. The sources provide numerous examples of such fallacies [3-6].
Formal fallacies involve errors in the structure of the argument itself [7, 8].
Informal fallacies are flaws in the content or context of an argument [7, 8].
Linguistic fallacies exploit ambiguities of language [8, 9].
Fallacies of relevance introduce irrelevant information to distract from the main point or omit important information [8-10].
Fallacies of presumption rely on unwarranted assumptions [8, 11].
Manipulation of Language:
Loaded words: Using biased or emotionally charged terms to sway an audience, creating a more favorable or hostile attitude than the facts would otherwise suggest [12, 13]. For example, calling leaders “war lords” instead of “defense chiefs” [12].
Equivocation: Using words with multiple meanings to confuse the issue [14]. This creates ambiguity, enabling a speaker to shift the meaning of their statements [15].
Half-concealed qualification: Using words to make a limited claim, but stressing the statement to make it sound like a general claim [16, 17]. The qualification is stated, but gets glossed over [17].
Extensional pruning: Using words in their commonly accepted meaning, but retreating to a strictly literal definition when challenged [18, 19]. The user makes a statement that permits one understanding but retreats to a limited definition to escape criticism [20].
Hedging: Using ambiguous language to allow for a change in definition later [21]. The language is carefully chosen to retain the option to switch definitions [22].
Distraction and Diversion:
The red herring: Introducing irrelevant material to divert attention from the main argument [23]. This tactic tries to change the subject and lead the discussion in a different direction [24].
Irrelevant humor: Using jokes or humorous stories to distract from the issue at hand [25, 26].
Shifting Ground: Changing the substance of the argument while pretending to maintain consistency [27]. This tactic is used to avoid criticism of the original stance by moving to a different one [28].
Emotional Manipulation:
Emotional appeals: Using emotional language or appeals to sway an audience instead of using logic or evidence [29]. This involves appealing to emotions such as fear, envy, hatred, superstition or pride [30].
Argumentum ad Misericordiam: Using pity to support an argument instead of using reasoned discourse [31].
Argumentum ad Populum: Appealing to popular attitudes and emotions instead of presenting evidence [32, 33].
Exploitation of Assumptions and Beliefs:
Every schoolboy knows: Presenting a claim as widely known to discourage questions [34, 35].
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Appealing to false authority or expertise to support a claim [36].
Argumentum ad Lazarum: Claiming that a person’s poverty makes their argument more valid [37].
Argumentum ad Crumenam: Claiming that a person’s wealth makes their argument more valid [10].
Repetition:
Argumentum ad Nauseam: Repeating a point of view constantly in order to make it more likely to be accepted, even without new evidence [38]. This tactic attempts to erode critical thinking [38, 39].
Attacks on the Person:
Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive): Attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself [40]. This aims to undermine their credibility [41].
Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial): Appealing to the special circumstances of the person to get them to accept an argument [42]. This tactic urges acceptance due to the position or interests of the person being addressed [42].
Poisoning the well: Discrediting an opponent before they have a chance to present their argument [43]. This tactic sets up an insult for anyone who might disagree [44].
Tu quoque: Undermining a case by pointing out that the proponent is guilty of the same thing [45].
Misrepresentation:
Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack [46]. This involves creating an easily refuted version of the argument and attacking that instead of the real argument [46, 47].
Refuting the example: Rejecting a general claim because of a bad example used to support it [48]. This tactic focuses on the example instead of the central claim [48].
Other Deceptive Tactics
Shifting the burden of proof: Insisting that the audience disprove a claim instead of providing evidence to support it [49].
Unaccepted Enthymemes: Presenting an argument with an unstated assumption that is not accepted by the other party [50]. This tactic omits important elements from the argument [51].
Trivial Objections: Opposing an argument based on minor or incidental aspects, rather than the main claim [52].
Blinding with science: Using technical jargon to make a weak argument seem more credible [53].

By understanding these deceptive tactics, one can better identify attempts to manipulate and be more prepared to engage in honest and effective discourse [54].

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

Category: Win Every Argument

How to Win Every Argument by Madsen Pirie