How to expose and respond to bad arguments
We hear or read arguments every day. We read them in books, newspapers, on the internet, and we hear them on TV news commentaries. Have you ever noticed how one can refute a claim by making an assertion without backing it up? Sometimes when we engage in conversation with others, and when one does not agree with our view, they simply flatly deny our view and make their own claim without an explanation. But here’s the thing — the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof.
What’s more, all of us have had our character attacked. Especially if you are a Christian. That should come as no surprise since Jesus warned us in John 15:18, 20 that, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you,” and “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.”
What I want to show you here is how to expose and respond to bad arguments when someone asserts without any backup, attacks your character, or tries to lead you off track in a conversation. First, let’s define what an argument is.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
What is an argument?
An argument is not necessarily a shouting match, and it shouldn’t be. It is simply this, a group of statements or premises (reasons) to provide support for a conclusion. In other words, the conclusion should logically follow from the premises.
Logical fallacies
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that comes from mistaken reasoning. Some fallacies occur so often that they have been given names. Because my audience here is mostly Christian, I will explain one tactic and three fallacies that are most commonly used against Christians.
Assertions
Sometimes when we are in conversation with others and we state our position on a topic, if the other person disagrees, many times our view is completely disregarded and declared as false with no argument. What people do is offer us a conclusion without any premises. That is called an assertion. For example, if I make any claim about Christianity supported by either Scriptural or historical evidence, and that person replies, “Oh that’s just false,” or “That never happened,” why should I believe them? I would tell them that they have not offered me any reasons or premises to support their conclusion that what I said is false. All they have done is make an assertion or tell me their own opinion but haven’t told me why I should believe their claim.
You will see this in the comments that are posted below this article and some of my other articles in the Christian Post. But hear this, an assertion is not an argument, and that is what I would tell them.
Ad Hominem fallacy
Let’s face it, in today’s culture, many people have lost all self-control and civility. One can’t state one’s view anymore without another calling them a name in response or being physically attacked. We’ve seen it with our own eyes. In logic, name-calling is called an Ad Hominem response — an attack on one’s character. Here’s how it happens — one person advances a view, and the other responds by focusing their attention not to the first person’s argument, but to the person himself/herself. This is an argument against the person. Let’s say that I offer my view about disciplining a child, and someone tells me that I’m mean. Here’s how I would respond. “Okay. Let’s say you’re right and that I’m the meanest person on the planet. But you still haven’t addressed my argument and told me why I’m wrong, and why I should believe your point of view. You have only called me a name. What is your argument for your view?”
If they don’t have an argument, your response will probably be met with more name-calling. When that happens, we know that it’s no reflection on us. It is because the other person does not have an argument, and so they have to resort to name-calling because that is all they have to offer.
Genetic fallacy
Say that I’m in a conversation with another person telling them why I’m a Christian. Their response might be, “Oh you’re just a Christian because you were born in the U.S.A. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be Muslim.” This is a Genetic Fallacy because it dismisses my argument solely based on where I’m from rather than addressing my original argument. My response to that would be, “Okay, so what? That may be true. But where I’m from has no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. Christianity is true because an event occurred — the resurrection. My place of origin has no bearing on the historical evidence of the resurrection.” By responding this way, I have returned the focus of the conversation back to the original context.
Red Herring fallacy
This logical fallacy occurs when the arguer diverts attention from the other arguer by changing the subject to a different one that may still be subtly related to the topic at hand. They then draw a conclusion about this different issue by presuming it’s true. Then they think they have won the argument.
The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent. A red herring is dragged across the trail to lead the dogs astray. Red herrings have a very potent scent. Only the best dogs will follow the original scent[1].
I saw this happen at a city council meeting in my town on one occasion. The topic in question was whether or not our city should allow the words, “In God We Trust” in our city council chambers. One man who was against this motion stood up and started first by degrading the character of the one council member who proposed the motion, and then by saying that this council member did not have such words posted anywhere even in his own place of business. When he sat down, I went next. I proceeded to give the council reasons why they should put these words in the council chamber and then brought their attention to the fact that the gentleman who spoke before me, only insulted the council member, changed the subject completely, and did not give the council a reason why they should not allow “In God We Trust” in our council chamber. This man committed a red herring fallacy. When this happens, bring the person back to the topic at hand. Do not let them lead you astray. Tell them that what they are discussing is another topic entirely, and not the topic at hand. If they want to talk about that later, you will. But for now, you are focused on the original topic. Then ask what their arguments are to support their view.
For too long the Christian has been put on the defense, and most Christians are inept at knowing how to respond. But remember, the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. When an assertion is made without a backup argument, ask the other person why you or anyone should believe their assertion. Let them defend their position. When someone calls you a name, tell the other person that an attack on your character is not an argument, and ask the other person to defend their position. If someone tries to lead you down a rabbit trail, bring them back to the topic of conversation. You can successfully navigate conversations and stay in the driver’s seat when you listen well and stay focused.
[1] Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic (Stamford, Ct., Cengage Learning, 2015) 136, 137
Claudia is a Christian apologist, national speaker, and blogger with a Master of Arts degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. She is on the speaking team for the Talbot Seminary Biola On-The-Road Apologetics conferences, teaches Apologetics at her church, and leads the ladies Bible study. Claudia has been a repeat guest on the KKLA radio show in Los Angeles, Real Life With Gina Pastore and David James. Her blog posts have been published multiple times in The Poached Egg online apologetics magazine, and she is a contributing writer for Women In Apologetics. She blogs at Straight Talk With Claudia K. After raising two now adult sons, her focus now is to make an impact in the world for Christ.
