Arguments That Embarrass Only The Advocate

I often see arguments that advocates think are persuasive. In fact, the arguments convince me only to doubt everything the advocate says.

For example: “We had a terrible blizzard last week. See? I told you that global warming is a hoax!”

The speaker believes that he (or she) is making a point. And the speaker is in fact making a point: “I’m a fool.”

In calculating global warming, scientists look at the instrumental record — temperature data recorded by human beings — that go back to about the year 1850. Scientists then look at proxy records — such as tree rings, ice cores, and fossils — to push the data back by millennia or more. This gives some information about the earth’s temperature over time.

So we had a blizzard last week.

What exactly is that supposed to prove?

(I’m an equal opportunity critic. People should not listen to conservatives who say that global warming is disproved by last week’s cold snap. Nor should people listen to liberals who say that global warming is proven by last week’s heat wave. Global warming analyzes data spanning thousands, or millions, of years. Last week’s temperature is irrelevant, and any intelligent person interested in seriously discussing the issue would never say things like this.)

Here’s a second example of an embarrassing argument: “A good guy with a gun recently stopped a criminal who otherwise would have committed a horrible crime. See? Guns are useful. Only a fool would support gun control!”

Of course good guys with guns occasionally stop crimes. But that’s irrelevant. The question is comparative: Do the three times when good guys with guns stopped crimes offset the thousands of times when a spouse pulled out a handy loaded gun and blew away the other spouse? Or when someone committed suicide become of the availability of a convenient and lethal means?

Good guys with guns occasionally stop crimes.

But that says essentially nothing about the need for gun control. Don’t trust people (or online conservative pundits) who insist on making this argument. Those people are either stupid or intentionally trying to mislead you.

Example number three: “An illegal immigrant committed a heinous crime last week. See? I told you we have to deport millions of illegal immigrants!”

People commit heinous crimes. People in the country lawfully commit those crimes; people in the country unlawfully commit those crimes. The fact that a single individual committed a crime says nothing about what one should believe on a population-wide basis.

The question is, among other things, whether undocumented aliens, as a group, proportionately commit more (or worse) crimes than citizens do. The fact that one person committed rape or murder says nothing about the broader group.

The same thing goes for: “Illegal immigrant driving 18-wheeler kills pedestrian!”

Of course. It’s sad, but these things happen. The only question is whether undocumented aliens driving 18-wheelers kill pedestrians at a higher rate than citizens driving 18-wheelers do. I have no idea whether those data exist; if they do, then look at them. If they don’t, stop embarrassing yourself by making irrelevant arguments.

(President Donald Trump is a felon!

Are all Republicans felons?

Senator Bob Menendez is a felon!

Are all Democrats felons?

The example says nothing about the rule.

The fact that Republicans voted for Trump after he was convicted may say something about Republicans, but that’s another issue.)

Finally, there’s a different sort of silly argument that’s been making the rounds recently.

Conservative websites say: “The American public overwhelmingly supports voter identification laws. Therefore, one should support the SAVE America Act.”

Voter ID may, or may not, be a good idea.  It’s not crazy to ask someone to show a driver’s license (or some other form of official identification) at the time they vote. That’s a plausible way to reduce fraud. Republicans should propose that sort of limited law; the law might find some popular (and Democratic) support.

The SAVE America Act is not that limited law. In addition to voter identification, the SAVE America Act requires that American citizens present a passport or a birth certificate to be allowed to register to vote. Many people don’t possess passports and don’t have paper copies of their birth certificates. It can be a pain in the neck to gather those documents. Does society really want to impose on citizens the burden of gathering these documents before they can register to vote?

Maybe society does; maybe society does not.

But if someone is defending the SAVE America Act, don’t let them announce that “voter ID is a good idea, which most people support, so we should pass the SAVE America Act.” If you’re going to defend the SAVE America Act, then defend it. Don’t omit the heart of what’s at issue. Voter ID may be a good idea, but the SAVE America Act does much more than require voter ID.

Thinking about issues is a good idea.

Making silly arguments that reflect poorly on your intelligence is a less good idea. Don’t make arguments that prove only the old adage, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].