Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

For example, if I know Republicans won't "get" logical arguments-- statistics on gun deaths, for example-- is it right to use appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, and argumentum ad populum? Or does this introduce a kind of Achilles heel-- you'll plow through the masses, and then end up getting embarrassed when you eventually come across a decent debater? Or, on the other hand, will you end up so wrapped up in the web of bullshit that you are spinning, that you will ending degrading your own intellect?

It occurs to me that the Fox News people, for example, may actually be highly intelligent. They may know their crowd, and may be manipulating that crowd in a measured and deliberate way.

If you know your opponent is ignorant use it - I used lots of fallacies in my course about debate and communication - In fact what I've learned is that convincing the audience and winning matters more than using rational arguments.

Always know the audience, their age, literacy and political opinions. Manipulate them. That's how you win

It may be the lesser evil. So long as you aren't being blatantly dishonest. Actually now that I think about it, appeals to emotion for example are only fallacious if used as an argument for the truth. You could word an appeal to emotion to be more an argument to persuade people to reevaluate their values and beliefs. Hitchens was good at that.

You need to tailor your argument to the context you're in. If you're aware of the fallacy and are well stocked with non-fallacious arguments in favor of the same conclusion, but won't get through to whoever you're talking to without the fallacy, I'd feel safe in using it. Just make sure you're on solid non-fallacious ground too, before you dig yourself in too deep.

(March 7, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You need to tailor your argument to the context you're in. If you're aware of the fallacy and are well stocked with non-fallacious arguments in favor of the same conclusion, but won't get through to whoever you're talking to without the fallacy, I'd feel safe in using it. Just make sure you're on solid non-fallacious ground too, before you dig yourself in too deep.

If your fallacies are revealed by a more worthy opponent, wouldn't this lead to a counter-fallacy -- that the fallacies you've used should invalidate the point you were supporting with them?

It invalidates the argument you were throwing unless that argument is the only basis for your position

(March 7, 2015 at 8:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 7, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You need to tailor your argument to the context you're in. If you're aware of the fallacy and are well stocked with non-fallacious arguments in favor of the same conclusion, but won't get through to whoever you're talking to without the fallacy, I'd feel safe in using it. Just make sure you're on solid non-fallacious ground too, before you dig yourself in too deep.

If your fallacies are revealed by a more worthy opponent, wouldn't this lead to a counter-fallacy -- that the fallacies you've used should invalidate the point you were supporting with them?

Which is the point that you can bust out all those non-fallacious arguments I talked about before.

I might look at the results of how the greatest orators and authors and poets of all time have gone about moving people. Historically, "spiritual" and political movements have been headed by those who used rhetoric and base level emotional metaphor to "grab and move" their audience. From Socrates, to Hitler, to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi to JFK. , Basically everyone who has ever said or written anything worth quoting , has had to use these tactics to create a visceral response from their listeners.

I will add that pure debaters like Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrass Tyson tend to have a much harder time winning over their audience or doing anything other than "entrenching" their Nay-sayers into their own side of the debate.

Not sure that applies to exactly what you mean , but food for thought.

Doc

I argue sincerely for all the reasons you listed, and additionally, I have to be satisfied with my own efforts. And there's little point in sacrificing my own credibility for the sake of the agreement of others, imo.

(March 7, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I argue sincerely for all the reasons you listed, and additionally, I have to be satisfied with my own efforts. And there's little point in sacrificing my own credibility for the sake of the agreement of others, imo.

I don't think anybody I listed under either side of the subject sacrificed their credibility in any way? Maybe Hitler?

Doc