The Inconsistency Argument -- Valid?

[Guest mormonmusic]

One thing I notice when people are debating/discussing issues is a tendency to rely on what I will call the "inconsistency argument". It goes something like this:

Person A: Eating a lot of protein isn't good for your bones because it leaches calcium and makes them weak.

Person B: Well, YOU eat a lot of protein. So how can you speak out against eating protein when you eat so much yourself????

Or

Person A says: It's offensive when Christains say that Mormons aren't Christian.

Person B says: Well, YOU'RE offensive as a Mormon because Joseph Smith said in his first vision that God said not to join any other religion because they are ALL WRONG.

Do you think this is a valid way to debate a point?

[Wingnut]

It doesn't sound like debate to me. It sounds like petty arguing.

[FunkyTown]

It depends on what the argument is, M&M!

If someone says 'Overeating is wrong! Really wrong! You could get heart disease! Get fallen arches! Get harpooned!'

And someone else says, 'Bob? You're 5 foot, four inches tall. You weigh 450 pounds.'

They are basically arguing two different things. Here is the argument upon translation:

Person a: Overeating is bad.

Person B: Stop shoving healthy eating in my face. You're a hypocrite.

One thing I notice when people are debating/discussing issues is a tendency to rely on what I will call the "inconsistency argument". It goes something like this:

Person A: Eating a lot of protein isn't good for your bones because it leaches calcium and makes them weak.

Person B: Well, YOU eat a lot of protein. So how can you speak out against eating protein when you eat so much yourself????

Or

Person A says: It's offensive when Christains say that Mormons aren't Christian.

Person B says: Well, YOU'RE offensive as a Mormon because Joseph Smith said in his first vision that God said not to join any other religion because they are ALL WRONG.

Do you think this is a valid way to debate a point?

[not_ashamed]

No, its not a valid way to debate a point. It is also not very effective. Much of that type of arguing back and forth seems to me to stem from a persons overwhelming need to be right. When it comes to facts, i would prefer to be corrected if I am wrong. It's the only way I can hope to become wiser. When it comes to opinion, we all have one and bickering about it half the day isn't going to change mine or the person I am speaking with.

[john doe]

No, they are not valid ways of debating. They ignore the facts of the argument, and deflect it into making the arguments about the person delivering it, and not addressing the actual argument in any way. We see this all the time in both religion and politics. There are people on this site who bring up valid arguments but they are attacked by others based on who they are, not the facts of their argument. Certain political commentators receive ridicule here based on their personas and not on the validity of their argument.

[MarginOfError]

What's more, I don't see how this is an issue of logical inconsistency. I think the argument presented is more like reductio ad hypocrisy.

And no, I don't think it's a valid argument to make. Consider the following:

Drug Addict: Drugs are bad!

School Child: But you do drugs!

Despite the drug addict's hypocrisy, he's right. Drugs are bad. His hypocrisy, in this case, makes him more qualified to speak to the badness of drugs than the innocent school child.

[prisonchaplain]

One thing I notice when people are debating/discussing issues is a tendency to rely on what I will call the "inconsistency argument". It goes something like this:

Person A says: It's offensive when Christains say that Mormons aren't Christian.

Person B says: Well, YOU'RE offensive as a Mormon because Joseph Smith said in his first vision that God said not to join any other religion because they are ALL WRONG.

Do you think this is a valid way to debate a point?

I disagree with the others here. The consistency argument is valid. Not conclusive, but valid. In this example, you can tone down the conclusions by summarizing that neither Joseph Smith nor the modern LDS critic believed that one another's churches represented the full practice of Christian truth. So, why don't we focus on Christian truth, rather than the personalities and accusations? . . . hopefully, you can then transition to a discussion about church teachings.

IMHO it will do no good to tell someone who mentions the offense s/he takes at Joseph Smith's "join none of them" vision that such a comparison is irrelevant or non sequitar. To do so might seem dismissive.

[prisonchaplain]

And no, I don't think it's a valid argument to make. Consider the following:

Drug Addict: Drugs are bad!

School Child: But you do drugs!

Despite the drug addict's hypocrisy, he's right. Drugs are bad. His hypocrisy, in this case, makes him more qualified to speak to the badness of drugs than the innocent school child.

"Do as I say, not as I do!" I understand...but it's never very effective.

[Dravin]

Logic is not the end all and be all of persuasion. Pathetic appeal is an extremely useful argumentation technique when you can successfully pull it off. Of course logically speaking convincing people to vote for you not the evil puppy kicker doesn't mean you are right, but in many instances winning is considered an acceptable replacement for being right or correct. Tears lack logical weight, but they can sure be an effective means of ending an argument.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest mormonmusic]

Logic is not the end all and be all of persuasion. Pathetic appeal is an extremely useful argumentation technique when you can successfully pull it off. Of course logically speaking convincing people to vote for you not the evil puppy kicker doesn't mean you are right, but in many instances winning is considered an acceptable replacement for being right or correct. Tears lack logical weight, but they can sure be an effective means of ending an argument.

This may be true when all you care about is swaying an audience in your favor -- at any cost. But I'm talking about reasoned, logical debate, from a more academic/critical thinking perspective.

However, when people use emotion/personal attacks, I believe in uncovering the tactic and exposing it before their eyes.

I've run into a couple real estate agents that use the emotion/personal attack method to get you to behave the way they want. I disagreed with one once on a contract matter and they replied "I think your approach to business is very unusual" . I replied "How?" -- to which she replied "Because you do things that most people dont' want to do, such as change the terms of the contract".

I uncovered that one immediately indicating that negotiation is very much a part of business, and that this isn't unusual at all -- that she appeared to be trying to simply manipulate me into agreeing to terms favorable to the seller so she could close the deal.

Then we moved on and she agreed to the changes in the contract nonetheless....I personally don't have a lot of respect for arguments like that as they are largely manipulative and void of logic.

[Dravin]

But I'm talking about reasoned, logical debate, from a more academic/critical thinking perspective.

I must confess I've not run across your provided examples in a more academic/critical thinking environment, it is usually informal debate/arguments where such things are trotted out. Start pointing out logical fallacies in the kind of arguments these things happen in and you'll find you won't get far (which is fair enough, they aren't getting far if you are noticing the fallacies in their arguments either).

The thing is one can be remarkably effective at preaching to the choir using such rhetoric and even snagging those that lean your way a bit. It's like one Gore speech I read, I'm sure it was rousing to his audience and those with an inclination towards his position but it turned me off. That said just because it turned me off doesn't mean it lacked value and efficacy in toto. It did lack logical value but logic is only part of persuading someone, or at least only one way in which you can do so.

Then we moved on and she agreed to the changes in the contract nonetheless....I personally don't have a lot of respect for arguments like that as they are largely manipulative and void of logic.

Blunt heavy handed attempts usually backfire, but more subtle and skillful use of emotional appeal is fairly common even if it is just in how you present the logical portion of the argument. Choosing to phrase things as the "horrors" or war instead of "consequences" is an example and that level of stuff does rear its head in more critical or academic circles even though, "Well ya! Your long dead leader said something I take to be offensive so I can be offensive if I want!" doesn't.

Edit: Note this is all tangent, valid and effective aren't the same thing. Argumentum ad baculum (or a host of other fallacies) can be effective at getting people to concede to you but that doesn't make it a 'valid' argument logically speaking. Anyway to actually be on topic a little bit, the examples you provide sound like a form of tu quoque.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Dravin