If for some reason you do get into an argument however, here are the some key logical fallacies you need to watch out for…

I hope I’m starting to convince you that arguing is pointless and doesn’t work.

“What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.” – James Clear

“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. Finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor for convincing and converting other people to his view.” – Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails, 1956

This annoying phenomenon is known as the backfire effect.

Beliefs can be so incredibly stubborn, that even when someone destroys our argument, or presents us with irrefutable evidence that clearly proves that our beliefs are demonstrably false, not only will we not change our minds, but we’ll dig our heels in and continue to believe whatever we want to believe with even more confidence and conviction.

“Beliefs are remarkably resilient in the face of empirical challenges that seem logically devastating. They can even survive the destruction of their original evidential bases.” – Lee Ross and Craig A. Anderson

Belief perseverance is the tendency for us to continue to hold onto our beliefs even when the evidence and information we initially used to support them is later proven to be demonstrably false.

“Belief perseverance is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it. Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect.” – Wikipedia

One of the reasons it’s so difficult to change someone’s mind in an argument is due to belief perseverance

Circular reasoning is when an argument assumes what it is trying to prove I.e. the conclusion is assumed within the premises

For example:

“I’m right, because I say I’m right.”

“I know he’s not lying, because he tells me that he’s not lying.”

“The Bible/Quran is the word of God because it says it is”

“Islam is a religion of peace, because it says it is”

“The universe was created, therefore someone created it”

Here is a good example of circular reasoning with an Obama protester speaking to a reporter from CNN:

Protester: “He’s a fascist”

CNN reporter: “Why do you say he’s a fascist?”

Protester: “He is a fascist”

CNN reporter: “Why?”

Protester: “Because he is”

CNN reporter: “In what way can you say that?”

Protester: “Because he is, he’s a fascist”

Non sequitur (“it does not follow”)

A non sequitur is a statement or conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from the previous statement. It’s an invalid inference.

Non sequitur example #1

“Alex Jones is crazy. All conspiracy theorists are crazy.”

Non sequitur example #2

“Tom Cruise has never won an Oscar. Hollywood is rigged.”

Non sequitur example #3

“Another fake news story. Everything the media says is bullshit.”

Non-sequiturs are often used to sneak in contentious points by hiding them next to a point of agreement.

Red Herring

A red herring is an argument or statement that has been introduced by a speaker into a discussion to try to change the topic, it’s a strategic diversion used to distract the audience/listener/reader from the original issue being discussed.

Red herrings are often deliberate attempts by intellectually dishonest speakers to try to subtly change the subject to one they would prefer to speak to, and to distract the audience/listener/reader from the original issue instead of addressing it.

The newly introduced subject may be somewhat similar or related to the original topic, or it may be completely off topic yet be controversial, entertaining or interesting enough to capture the attention of the audience/listener/reader and distract them from the original issue to be discussed.

Red herrings don’t necessarily arrive at any specific conclusion, or go anywhere in particular, they’re simply arguments or statements used by a speaker as a strategic diversion to distract from the original topic of discussion.

Red Herring fallacy structure

Argument A is presented by Speaker 1

Speaker 2 introduces argument B

So, the discussion is no longer about argument A

Red herring example #1

Professor Conway complains of inadequate parking on our campus. But did you know that last year Conway carried on a torrid love affair with a member of the English department? The two used to meet every day for clandestine sex in the copier room. Apparently they didn’t realize how much you can see through that fogged glass window. Even the students got an eyeful. Enough said about Conway.

The original statement was about inadequate parking on campus. But the statements that followed were red herrings because they wandered off point and changed the topic without any attempt to address the parking issue. This was an attempt to distract the audience/listener/reader and divert their attention away from the original parking issue.

Red herring example #2

There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But many of these foods are essential to our health. Carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A, broccoli is rich in iron, and oranges and grapefruits have lots of vitamin C.

The original statement was about the need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But the statements that followed were red herrings because they changed the subject to the health benefits of fruits and vegetables without any attempt to address the original issue of the need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables.

Red herring example #3

Former Republican Party nominee Sarah Palin, in response to a question from former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, during the 2008 Vice Presidential debate:

Whether or not “the American workforce is the greatest in this world”, has nothing to do with Joe Biden’s assertions that John McCain was “out of touch” for saying at 9am that “the fundamentals of the economy were strong”, and then 2 hours later at 11am saying that there was an “economic crisis.”

Red herring example #4

Former Republican Party nominee Mitt Romney, in response to a question about gun control, during the 2nd 2012 Presidential debate:

Instead of addressing the question:

“What has your administration done, or plan to do, to limit the availability of assault weapons?”

Mitt reframed the question to:

“How are we going to change the culture of violence we have?”

He then proceeded to talk about the importance of good schools, and how people should get married before they have babies, and why we need two parent families etc.

Mitt maybe correct that two parent families lead to less poverty and more opportunity, but his answer has nothing to do with the question: “What has your administration done, or plan to do, to limit the availability of assault weapons?”

How to counter the red herring

If someone is wandering off point and/or seemingly trying to change the topic you can ask them,

“Where are you going with this?”

The speaker maybe leading towards a conclusion that is irrelevant to the original topic of discussion, or they may be wandering off topic to nowhere in particular.

If the speaker tries to change the topic of discussion you can remind them,

“That’s not what we’re talking about”.

You can remind them that they’ve said nothing to answer your question or to address the original topic of discussion, then you can redirect the conversation back to the topic that was originally being discussed.

Red herrings can creep very subtly into many arguments. You need to make sure that you and your conversational partner stay focused on the original topic at all times without too much digression.

How the red herring got its name

The red herring fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow the scent of a fox. A bag of red herrings was dragged across the fox trail to see if the dogs could ignore the potent scent and stick to the original scent of the fox.

Similarly in an argument you need to make sure that you and your conversational partner avoid digressing, and don’t allow your conversational partner to subtly change the subject or distract you from the main point until they’ve addressed the original issue to be discussed.

Examine the statement – not the speaker (the genetic fallacy)

“Examine what is said, not the speaker.” – Middle Eastern proverb

If Adolf Hitler said 2 + 2 = 4 does that make it wrong?

If Albert Einstein said 2 + 2 = 5 does that make it right?

Of course not.

Yet the way people speak, and the way the media presents “news”, it’s as if everything that came out of the mouth of an expert or a scientist was automatically right, and everything that came out of a dictator, serial killer, terrorist etc. was automatically wrong. But that’s just not the case.

A statement is either true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect – regardless of who said it.

Adolf Hitler can be right.

Albert Einstein can be wrong.

Saddam Hussein can be right.

Stephen Hawking can be wrong.

Osama Bin Laden can be right.

Neil deGrasse Tyson can be wrong.

Stop judging the truth and validity of statements based solely on who said them.

Examine the statement, not the speaker.

Separate the statement, from the speaker.

The genetic fallacy is when you judge the truth or validity of a statement not based on its own merits, but based solely on the credentials of the one who said it.

This is stupid logic.

It doesn’t matter if something was said by:

Albert Einstein

Isaac Newton

Leonardo Da Vinci

Nikola Tesla

Stephen Hawking

Or any other great philosopher or scientist – it’s not automatically true.

It doesn’t matter if something was said by:

Buddha

Jesus

Krishna

Muhammad

Confucius

Or any other great religious or spiritual leader – it’s not automatically true.

It doesn’t matter if something was said by:

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

Osama Bin Laden

Saddam Hussein

Al-Qaeda, ISIS or the Taliban

Or any other evil dictator, serial killer or terrorist – it’s not automatically untrue.

It doesn’t matter who said it or how they said it, or how many people believe it or how long it’s been believed for, a statement is either true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Experts can be wrong (and often are) and liars can tell the truth.

The next time you hear something from an expert, genius, scientist etc. don’t automatically believe it and assume it’s a statement of fact. Remember no one is infallible. Everyone can be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.

It doesn’t matter if someone is the world’s smartest person, or if they’re the world’s biggest expert, genius or scientist, or if they’re the world’s biggest asshole, hypocrite, idiot, liar, rapist, terrorist, or serial killer – a statement is either true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect – regardless of who said it.

If a smoker tells me not to smoke cigarettes because they’re bad for my health, are they wrong just because they don’t “walk their talk” and “practice what they preach”’? Should I ignore what they say and start smoking cigarettes just because their advice was hypocritical?

Of course not.

The truth might be told aggressively or condescendingly, it might come in the way of criticism, screaming or shouting, it might be said from your worst enemy or from the most unlikable person on the planet, but try to separate the statement from the speaker because the statement may contain an invaluable lesson and they maybe the only person who will tell you the truth.

“You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.” – Maimonides

You must examine the statement – not the speaker because:

“The wisest of the wise may err.” – Aeschylus

And

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” – Albert Einstein

And

“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” – Winston Churchill

Note: This doesn’t mean that you should ignore someone’s body language, facial expressions, emotions, tonality etc. if someone seems like they’re lying – they probably are. If someone seems like they’re lying or giving a statement under duress – they probably are. The message is simply: Facts are facts no matter who says them, and nonsense is nonsense no matter who says it. Experts aren’t always right, and fools aren’t always wrong.

The fallacy fallacy The fallacy-fallacy is when you presume that the conclusion of an argument is wrong – just because it contains a fallacy. However just because an argument contains errors, faulty premises, illogical or invalid reasoning etc. that doesn’t mean that the conclusion is necessarily wrong. Some people just aren’t very good at arguing, articulating their thoughts, or stating their beliefs in a logical or coherent manner, but that doesn’t mean that you should discount their entire argument and conclude that their final conclusion is wrong – even if the logic used to get there was flawed. Remember: Just because they can’t explain it or prove it, that doesn’t mean they’re not right. Just because you can criticize or poke holes in an argument or a theory, that doesn’t mean that the conclusion is necessarily wrong, or that you should throw the whole thing out. It always makes me cringe and shake my head whenever I hear someone say: “I stopped reading/listening/watching when… (insert argument the reader disagrees with)” Just because an article/book/podcast/speech/video contains an error, or many errors, that doesn’t mean that it’s 100% incorrect, or that it doesn’t hold any value, or that you can’t learn from it. Remember: Take what is useful and discard the rest. Let the conclusion stand separately of the speaker and of the argument, logic, rationale etc. used to get there, no matter how difficult that might be to do. The bottom line: Don’t confuse a bad argument with a false conclusion. This goes the other way too: Just because an argument seems airtight logical from top to bottom, looks right on paper, sounds good in theory etc. that doesn’t mean it’s right in reality. On the spot fallacy You also need to watch out for the on the spot fallacy: “The on the spot fallacy (OTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic. The fallacy asserts that one must be an expert on a topic in order to discuss anything related to it (and, at that, an expert with flawless memory)” – RationalWiki RationalWiki describes the on the spot fallacy by saying: “OTS is a mixture of credentialism and appeal to authority (you’re wrong because you don’t know absolutely everything about an issue), shifting the burden of proof (you have to prove that something is absolutely true, while the opposite side has no burden to disprove what evidence you present) and moving the goalposts (by demanding increasingly overspecific replies to a question that’s already been answered, until the replier fails to be more specific, at which point the original question is considered unanswered or incorrectly answered). The issue isn’t just that it’s practically (though perhaps ultimately not technically) impossible to meet the excruciatingly high burden of proof they request, but rather that it’s unreasonable for you to have everything available immediately. Even experts don’t carry around stacks of all the collected proof for their position.” – RationalWiki Before you start: Get clear on your definitions “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” – Socrates I cannot stress this highly enough – before you get into an argument: Get clear on your definitions to make sure you’re both arguing the same thing. This may sound obvious, but I’ve come to realize that lots of arguments are simply the result of poorly defined definitions. Sometimes two people believe essentially the same thing, but they have different ways of expressing it

Sometimes it’s not that people are necessarily in disagreement with one another, it’s that they’re both arguing two different things e.g. One person is arguing economics, the other is arguing technology, and the two arguments have nothing to do with each other (this is known as “talking at cross-purposes”) Seriously this is important. Don’t assume that you’re both arguing the same thing. You also need to get clear on your definitions in order to avoid: Appeal to dictionary (aka appeal to definition) When someone insists on only one particular definition of a word, and insists that this should apply in all possible contexts, whilst ignoring all other definitions for that word. Definist fallacy (aka persuasive definition) When someone insists on defining a word, phrase, term etc. in a way that is favorable to one’s own side of an argument. e.g. Abortion should be defined as murder, taxation should be defined as theft by the state etc. Lots of people like to redefine words like logical, rational, reasonable etc. to mean whatever they want them to mean, and they’ll even deny and dismiss the dictionary definition of a word if it doesn’t suit them. Definitional retreats When someone attempts to change the meaning of a word or phrase halfway through an argument in order to save face, and to prevent them from admitting they were wrong in the first place. When I said “poor” “rich” “sexual relations” etc. what I really meant was… Doublespeak Ambiguous language used by intellectually dishonest people to deliberately obscure, disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words in order to deceive the listener, and to avoid committing oneself either way. The dictionary doesn’t tell you what a word means The dictionary doesn’t tell you what a word means, nor what it should mean. It simply gives you most common usage of a word at the time of writing, according to the authors. Watch out for weasel words

Weasel words aka “anonymous authorities” are words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous and vague, that are often used to deceive and mislead. They’re frequently used by advertisers, salespeople, politicians and the media to make a point seem authoritative, whilst simultaneously avoiding making any specific claim in case the speaker needs to later backtrack. Weasel words examples “Some say” “They say” “People are saying” “Experts say” “Scientists say” “Studies show” “Twitter” (e.g. “Twitter isn’t happy”) “The internet” If someone uses weasel words against you, ask them to specify their source: “Who said?” “Which people?” “Which experts?” “Which scientists?” “What study?” Watch out for weasel words.

The burden of proof

“Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies” The burden of proof is the obligation to prove one’s own assertion, and it is always on the one making the claim – not the other way around.

For example: If I claim to be able to levitate, predict the future, read minds etc. it’s not up to you to prove that I can’t – it’s up to me to prove that I can.

I’m the one making the claim – therefore it’s up to me to prove it.

Therefore in an atheist vs religious debate “Does God exist” it’s not up to the unbelieving atheist to prove that God doesn’t exist, it’s up to the believer in God to prove that God does exist, since they’re the one making the claim.

It’s just like in a court of law. “Innocent until proven guilty”. If someone is making the claim that you are guilty of a crime, they must prove it – it’s not up to you to prove you are innocent.

How to win an argument

Note: I’m going to use the term opponent to mean the other person, even though I personally don’t like the combative connotation of the word.

Again, for me personally, instead of arguing, I prefer to discuss ideas and share information in order to gain new perspectives, and the only way I can do that is by listening more than I talk, and by seeking to understand before being understood – not by interrupting my “opponent” in an attempt to “destroy” them.

Don’t argue with idiots

First of all, don’t argue with idiots. It’s a waste of time and energy. Save your breath.

“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience” – Mark Twain

“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person” – Bill Murray

However, if you want to have an intelligent debate with a smart person:

Become a subject matter expert on the topic

“I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.” – Charlie Munger

You need to become a subject matter expert on the topic, and know it better than your opponent.