IV. REBUTTAL CRITERION
The Rebuttal Criterion--usually the part most overlooked in discussions of
issues--is the requirement that an argument demonstrate that it has examined
all the relevant, acceptable, and sufficient evidence, not just that which
tends to support the arguer's conclusion.
|
|
A. Fallacies of Counterevidence
Fallacies of counterevidence are parts of arguments which ignore, dismiss,
or deny outright a counterargument.
|
1. Ignoring the Counterevidence
(Assertion which simply ignores
any evidence not supporting the arguer's pre-decided conclusion)
|
"Federal arts funding wastes tax money on bad--even obscene--art and
on an inefficient bureaucracy; you can't convince me that there's
anything good about such funding at all."
"God said it; I believe it; that settles it."
|
2. Denying the Counterevidence
(Assertion which recognizes the
existence of evidence supporting an alternative explanation, but
which tries to "explain it away" or otherwise deny it instead of
adapting one's position to it)
|
"You can talk about 'free markets' all you want; I just know that
a really smart person running the economy is better than letting
everything happen by accident."
"Well, yes, it's true that we don't get anything back from all the
tax money we send to developing nations . . . but we should feel
good about helping other people."
|
|
B. Ad Hominem Fallacies
Fallacies of the ad hominem ("to the person") variety are those which
attempt to banish counterarguments by attacking the person making them
(thus failing not only the Rebuttal Criterion but the Relevance Criterion
as well).
|
1. Abusive Ad Hominem
(Assertion which changes the
listener's focus from defending his counterargument to defending
himself personally)
|
"Well, of course you'd be against abortion; you're probably frigid."
"Tell me, have you actually thought about this issue, or do you just
parrot everything Rush Limbaugh and the NRA tell you to say?"
|
2. Poisoning the Well
(Assertion which attempts to discredit
the listener, and thus the listener's counterargument)
|
"You can't know what it's like to be a woman, so your opinions about
abortion are worthless."
"Your arguments in favor of privatizing the FDA are interesting, but
you own some medical stocks, don't you?"
|
3. "You Do It, Too" Argument
(Assertion which attempts to
discredit the listener's counterargument by charging the listener
with hypocrisy)
|
"You're in no position to tell me to stop taking drugs; I saw you
smoke a joint once."
"OK, so we took a bunch of campaign money from foreign agents and
religious groups in return for White House access. But look what
the other guys did!"
|
|
C. Fallacies of Diversion
Diversive fallacies are forms of hand-waving intended to distract
listeners from the weakness of one's own arguments or the strength of
counterarguments.
|
1. Attacking a Straw Man
(Assertion against an easy-to-dismiss counterargument the listener never
made)
|
"In other words, your support for nuclear power actually means you
favor letting more people die of cancer."
"I don't know why you're for tax cuts, unless you think the rich have
it too tough in this country. Why does your policy call for helping
the rich get richer?"
|
2. Trivial Objections
(Assertion against the weakest parts of a listener's counterargument)
|
"So what if there's an ozone hole at the South Pole? Nobody lives
there."
"I couldn't be a Catholic. Do those people really think the Pope is
infallible?"
|
3. Red Herring
(Assertion which tries to hide the weakness of a
position by drawing attention to some side issue)
|
"Oh, cheer up. Things could be worse--you could be unemployed."
"You're against abortion? Well, what about legalizing marijuana, are
you against that, too?"
|
4. Resort to Humor or Ridicule
(Assertion used to avoid having to directly address a counterargument)
|
"What's the big deal about taking life? Take my life--please!"
"Oh, so you think the Supreme Court was wrong, huh? Gee, I didn't
realize we had an expert on the Constitution among us. So how
much do you pay your law clerks, Your Eminence?"
|
5. Taking It Personally
(Assertion that a strong but objective counterargument is a personal
attack)
|
"Every time I express how I feel, you jump on me!"
"Why are you always picking on me?"
|