How to Not Look Dumb in your Next Debate

Maggie DeWaard
Nov 7 · 3 min read

Ever since doing debate though high school, I’ve been enchanted by logic and the joys of expert dialogue and argument. I’ve also noticed the upsettingly lax ways in which most people on the internet engage in argumentation. This is not surprising, really, but still upsetting to someone who believes at least some shade of logic should be applied to true debate. In all honesty social media arguments are replete with misuse of terms and ideas, but to dive deep into that confused pond would be too massive a task for one article. Instead I will turn my attention to the conversation surrounding logical fallacies, specifically that of the “slippery slope fallacy.”

To define our terms, we must begin with the actual definition and appropriate application of the slippery slope fallacy. To commit this fallacy in argument one would take a concept and claim that it will result in something horrible in magnified or even ludicrous ways. This is a fallacy because it attempts to strike down the argument of the opponent by resorting to sensationalism. Claiming “this” will lead to “THIS” and “THIS” will be the worst thing known to humankind is not sportsmanlike, nor is it intellectually compelling. It is not typically an accurate representation of reality, when any number of glossed-over steps would be necessary for “this” to lead to the horrible “THIS.” The fallacy of slippery slope in use means the argument in question lacks evidence and causation.

Now you may be thinking — I see this all over social media! And you’re right. This fallacy is generally pretty easy to spot. What’s not so easy to spot is misuse of the label.

Meaning: when you made what you believe to be a well-reasoned argument, and someone comes at you saying “that’s a slippery slope argument,” and just like that, you find yourself scrambling to stay afloat.

How do you combat this accusation? This seems to be the one fallacy people on the internet feel confident throwing around… but are they doing it correctly? I most commonly see people jumping to the conclusion that an argument has employed the use of a slippery slope fallacy when any sort of causation is invoked. I.e., if we really think “this” is a good policy, should we not then address the possibility of “this”? The response from those who disagree may be a resounding “SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!” and they might then believe they have completely discredited your argument. But have they?

NO.

The slippery slope fallacy exists BECAUSE arguments that invoke legitimate forms of causation are a completely valid form of argumentation. It is not pointing to an already weak method of debate and labelling it. Logical connection, evidentiary connection, or instinctual connection are all valid forms of argument. There is room for debate (aha!), and disagreements may abound, but they do not give cause for accusations of fallacious argumentation.

Fallacies do not exist to discourage people from connecting the dots between similar, or even disparate, ideas. It exists to hedge in the argumentation, and to make the boundaries clear. There must be logical connection, evidentiary support, or some other plausible connection between the ideas. This is, and always has been, a legitimate way to debate a topic. Because the idea (and term) “slippery slope” has somehow become entrenched in the current social media vocabulary, people are happy to throw it on any argument that connects ideas.

These ideas apply, truly, to all of the logical fallacies. The greatest fallacy of all may be wasting everyone’s time by accusing your opponent of logical fallacies and assuming 1) that you don’t need to support your claim that their argument is fallacious and/or 2) that you have won. Even successfully finding and naming a logical fallacy does not mean their arguments are useless. In order to stand out on social media, or in your office or your family events, learn to take on arguments head-on. Address what people are saying, take them seriously, and dissect their arguments with precision and fairness. Do not lean back and squawk at them that they have stepped into the quicksand of logical fallacy.

Maggie DeWaard

Written by

Philosophy degree, Master of Arts…. works in supply chain management.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade