No Marx for this debating tactic!

evangelicalhumanist · #1 (**permalink**) 21st June 2007, 06:40 PM

One of the less attractive tools in the debater's bag of unethical tricks is the hidden imputation of malevolent or ridiculous ideas or motives to your opponent. Think about the the Groucho Marx question from many years ago: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

This question is essentially unanswerable as it stands, and puts the opponent in the position of trying to refute an unfair allegation.

Such allegations can be quite discretely hidden, and still have the desired effect, so one should always be on the lookout for them. A good example might be to ask:

Quote:

Why would atheists even want to be ethical?"

It may sound, to the casual listener, to be an innocent question, but it isn't. Under-the-covers it alleges that an atheist (in fact all atheists) is so constituted that to be ethical requires a special condition (desire) that does not apply to anyone else.

That kind of question, too, is essentially unanswerable, because it forces the answerer to justify that which members of other groups or beliefs would not be asked to justify.

**Rev. Kelly** · #2 (**permalink**) 21st June 2007, 06:44 PM

And what would you like us to debate here? Atheists aren't necessarily unethical, some are, but so are some theists. So, what is debateable?

**RevKathyV** · #3 (**permalink**) 21st June 2007, 06:51 PM

RevKelly

vivamis123 · #4 (**permalink**) 21st June 2007, 08:09 PM

At first sight I agree with E.H. that the statement: Why would atheists even want to be ethical?" is an unfair allegation. But on second thought, if this statement is taken out of context, it might not be intended that way. I think that a lot of statements, once taken out of context could seem to be unfair allegations. In a debate, one has to see the whole context in order to make a fair judgement whether a statement is an allegation or not.

Lightkeeper · #5 (**permalink**) 21st June 2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Why would atheists even want to be ethical?"

Actually, what came to my mind here is "why would anyone want to be ethical?" We are all humans, no matter what our beliefs are? I didn't see the question as a slam against any particular faction.

I don't understand why "have you stopped beating your wife "is unanswerable. You can say "I never did." or "yes" or "no."

evangelicalhumanist · #6 (**permalink**) 21st June 2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Actually, what came to my mind here is "why would anyone want to be ethical?" We are all humans, no matter what our beliefs are? I didn't see the question as a slam against any particular faction.

I don't understand why "have you stopped beating your wife "is unanswerable. You can say "I never did." or "yes" or "no."

That is not the point. The point is, to make a statement (which may or may not be true, by the way), and speaking as if it were true and well-known to all is egregiously unfair to all readers who may not be well informed. Don't you see that it can have the effect of (and is probably intended to) push thoughts into the unsuspecting mind without arguing them.

The same sort of thing has been used by conservatives against gays for many years now, by the use of the term "special privileges." For example:

Quote:

The Big Lie of the campaign against equality for gay and lesbian Americans is the assertion that seeking protection from discrimination is somehow the equivalent of demanding "special rights" or "special privileges" that are not available to other citizens. The "special rights" message was the key to passage of an anti-gay referendum in Colorado in 1992, and is now the centerpiece of similar campaigns, including this year's referendum in Maine, where voters overturned an anti-discrimination law. After the Maine vote, the Christian Coalition's Randy Tate said, "The American people rejected the notion of special rights based on sexual activity behind closed doors." There are several variations on this message. For example, Pat Robertson told his TV viewers earlier this year, "I just don't think we should craft laws that give privileges on the basis of the way people perform sex acts." Gary Bauer took a more circuitous path to the same destination when he said, "While I believe homosexuals have rights, I do not think they are right. And they certainly don't have more rights than the rest of us. They have a right to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they do not have a right to impose their views upon our lives, liberties and happiness."
From People for the American Way

Saying that gays want "special rights" over and over again has made it something that many Americans now believe. But what would those "special" rights be? Well, it turns out there aren't any. Gays want they same rights (and responsibilities) as everybody else. To marry. To fight in the armed services without hiding who they are. To be protected by family and to protect their own families.

Not a single special right in the lot, and yet -- through nothing more than the spurious injection of that phrase "special rights" into a thousand debates ("The American people rejected the notion of special rights based on sexual activity behind closed doors"), it became an article of faith for many who simply didn't know better.

Do you still think it's a valid way to argue?

Now, as to your first question, "why would anyone want to be ethical" would be valid, because it doesn't impute anything unwarranted to any individual or group. But the moment you change "anyone" to "Ethiopians" you are making an unwarranted charge under the covers.

Lightkeeper · #7 (**permalink**) 22nd June 2007, 04:12 AM

You're talking about people already having their mind made up. Therefore, it isn't a question it's a statement. I think the only way to combat that is to come back with and equal question/statement directed at them.

Eolas Pellor · #8 (**permalink**) 22nd June 2007, 12:55 PM

The person starting this thread suggests, at the begginning of this thread, that he detects a malicious consipracy behind the seemingly innocent question:

Quote:

Why would atheists even want to be ethical?"

The person starting this thread then goes on to provide (post # 6) an example of what he calls "The same sort of thing ":

Quote:

The Big Lie of the campaign against equality for gay and lesbian Americans is the assertion that seeking protection from discrimination is somehow the equivalent of demanding "special rights" or "special privileges" that are not available to other citizens. etc

The problem is, the two are, in no way, parallel.

Furthermore, the question is utterly unlike Groucho's famous "have you stopped beating your wife, answer yes or no"* interrogatory, since it does admit of an answer (as Lightkeeper already pointed out). It is totally false to suggest that the initial question has some secret agenda, or is intended to defame, since it can easily be turned around: "Why would theists want to be ethical?"

And that is an easily answered question. (Theists would want to be ethical for a number of reaosns: To follow what they perceive as divine laws, out of respect for the religious and ethical traditions they find set out in sacred writings, because they fear that unethical behavior might reult in hell-fire, because their theology compells them to behave in an ethical manner to emulate the example of Crhsit or Buddha, or any number of religious saints....none of those motivations are available to an atheist.

And it might, just might, be of interest to find out on what basis, philosophical, dogmatic or whatever, an atheist advances ethics with any hope that they be universal, and not idiosyncratic.)

It seems to me that it takes a special kind of non-sequitur, a capricious lack of logic to suggest that a question -- which the person being questioned can either answer, or turn back on the questioner with ease -- is in any way parallel to an argument that asking for basic rights is the same as asking for special privilege. It displays, either a total failure to grasp what words mean...or an attempt to deceive people who may not have been following the original debate (in which the question was posed) in an attempt to curry sympathy.

And it seems bizarre that, when the question is raised in a thread in which the theme was "What do atheists put in the place of God?" that this could possibly be deemed an attack.

-----------------------------

* BTW, ommitting, either by pupose or accident, the "answer yes or no" clasue from Goucho's question turns it from a false debating tactic --one beloved of attorneys -- into an easily answered question. Much like the one I asked in the other thread.

evangelicalhumanist · #9 (**permalink**) 22nd June 2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

You're talking about people already having their mind made up. Therefore, it isn't a question it's a statement. I think the only way to combat that is to come back with and equal question/statement directed at them.

No, I'm talking about an attempt to insert something into the minds of people (the debate audience) who may not be familiar with the subject, or who may not have had time to consider the issue.

It is called a "Loaded Question," often called the "fallacy of the complex question," or "Plurium Interrogationum."

Quote:

The Fallacy of Many Questions: On the Notions of Complexity, Loadedness and Unfair Entrapment in Interrogative Theory

DOUGLAS WALTON
University of Winnipeg
Department of Philosophy

ABSTRACT. The traditional fallacy of many questions, also known as the fallacy of complex question, illustrated by the question, "Have you stopped sexually harassing your students?", has been known since ancient times, but is still alive and well. What is of practical importance about this fallacy is that it represents a tactic of entrapment that is very common in everyday argumentation, as well as in special kinds of argumentation like that in a legal trial or a parliamentary debate. The tactic combines the use of loaded questions with the complexity of the question. A key notion is that of the presupposition of the question. How to deal with such questions is a point of departure for interrogative theory, and for any attempts to construct formal dialogues of a kind that can be used as normative models of argumentation.

KEY WORDS: argument tactics, debate, fallacies, horns fallacy, interrogation, loaded questions, multiple-choice questions, multiple questions, questioning, tricky questions

The fallacy of many questions, sometimes also called the fallacy of the complex question, occurs in a kind of case where a complex question - that is, a question having several parts, is asked in such a way that, if the respondent answers it directly, he is trapped into conceding something that would cause him to lose the argument, or otherwise be unfavorable to his side.

The type of illustration usually given is a question like, "When did you stop cheating on your income tax returns?" The question is a whenquestion, so, in order to give a direct answer, the respondent has to indicate some particular time like, for example, December 2nd, 1976. However, in this case, if the respondent does give such a specific time as answer, then it is clear that he has become committed to having cheated on his income tax returns and, presumably, this is a proposition which generally he would not be want to concede, or at any rate, would be prejudicial, or not in his interest to concede.

The most important thing about the question, in this kind of case, is that it is an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent's options to a single type of direct answer or a small number of such possibilities of direct answer, all of which would compromise his side of the argument very sharply in a context of conversation.
(there is more...follow the link)