If you’ve been engaging with leftists for very long you know that they have very few arrows in their quiver of debate tactics. One is that they’ll simply lie.  The “very fine people” story is a prime example.

Another is that they’ll accuse us of what they’re doing, aka psychological projection. An example here is falsely accusing President Trump of engaging in a quid pro quo with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Meanwhile Joe Biden is on video bragging about withholding U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine until/unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company that was employing his son.

A third tactic leftists use is to employ one or more of the Logical Fallacies. These are flawed arguments that sound credible but which can lead us to erroneous conclusions. Look back through your debates with leftists and see how often you come across arguments like these:

1) Ad Hominem Attack — This seems to be their default response. When a conservative makes a point, states a fact or refutes a leftist argument, they simply call you a name and/or respond with profanity. Example: When a conservative says, “I’m voting for Trump” a leftist will respond with “Trump’s a *%$#! racist and so are you for supporting him!” (Or something like that.)

2) Proof by Assertion — The leftist will tender their unsubstantiated opinion as fact and refuse to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. This may continue until the conservative gives up, at which point the leftist claims victory. This is also sometimes referred to as “pigeon chess”. 

Here’s an example of a leftist using this fallacy:

Leftist: “Trump supports Project 2025!”

Conservative: “Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation and Trump has disavowed it.”

Leftist: “Trump’s policies line up perfectly with Project 2025.”

The leftist will repeatedly assert his claim without acknowledging evidence to the contrary, relying solely on his own opinion rather than engaging with the broader evidence.

3) Straw Man Fallacy — In this instance the leftist does not respond to the original argument. Instead he/she will minimize or exaggerate their opponent’s argument and refute its weaker form.

Example:

Pro-lifer: “Abortion is a human rights issue. We believe that all human beings have human rights.”

Pro-abort: “Anti-Choicers don’t respect women’s rights to choose and they don’t care about the babies after they’re born! They want women to be forced to give birth to unwanted children. Women must be able to choose what happens to their own bodies.”

In an attempt to make their own position appear stronger, the pro-abort in this example distorts the pro-lifers argument and attacks it rather than the original argument.

4) Loaded Question Fallacy — These are of the form, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A question is posed that has an implicit claim such that the question cannot be answered without sounding guilty. Canadian conservative Pierre Poilievre was questioned by a reporter who repeatedly utilized this tactic. Poilievere masterfully avoided getting trapped by simply questioning the unspoken assumption:

Reporter: “A lot of people would say that you're simply taking a page out of the Donald Trump book.”

Poilievre: “A lot of people? Like which people would say that?”

5) Appeal to Authority — While sometimes used by individuals in debates it’s very common to see this played out in the election cycle. Candidates on both sides will enlist the aid of prominent public figures such as academics, athletes and celebrities to support their campaigns. Since the public often admires these figures they may defer to their judgment.

While celebrities are certainly entitled to their opinion, the obvious issue here is that being skilled in one particular field does not always translate to expertise in another area. Bryan Cranston may be a talented actor but that doesn’t mean he’s qualified to make reliable claims on macroeconomics or foreign affairs.

Says Breaking Bad star Cranston, “I have never felt this much joy and optimism in a campaign in a long time. I can’t be happier for this candidate. I think she’s going to be a terrific president.” He may have a point, or not. But should we base our own opinion of a presidential candidate on what he says?

On the other hand, someone prominent in business may endorse a particular candidate based on that politician’s record in promoting economic policies that facilitate running a business. In this instance their expertise aligns with and lends credence to their opinion.

These are only five of the Logical Fallacies that both leftists (and sometimes conservatives) use in their arguments. There are many more, but I come across these most often. It’s worthwhile learning their characteristics so as to recognize and counter them when we see them.

Just like lies and psychological projection, the logical fallacies divert discussions away from substantive issues so that we get caught up in externalities, wasting a lot of time and energy instead of solving problems.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.