View Poll Results: Is the slippery slope argument a valid debate tactic?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 52.17%
  • No

    11 47.83%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: The Slippery Slope arguement

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: The Slippery Slope arguement

    Most of the time people's "slippery slope" arguments are based on their own emotional hysteria and not much else. In my mind, a true slippery slope must establish causation between a series of points, based on an original premise. If one's opponent can debunk even one point in the chain, then the whole premise is wrong... and if the slippery slope cannot even be proven with evidence in the first place, then it's opinionation and nothing more.

    Slippery slopes are usually due to lack of creative thinking. When I see one, I'm immediately on guard.

  2. #32
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: The Slippery Slope arguement

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Depends-I don't think gay marriage will lead to ceremonies involving sheep or goats. On the other hand in the gun control movement, the gun haters have continually admitted that they are using an incremental approach to gun bans (Charles Krauthammer's paen to the clinton gun ban is an example) and thus the slippery slope argument is completely valid when it comes to the plotting of the ARC
    The gun control thing is a probability argument, not slippery slope. There is a premise that exists, and is supported by the data, that "Many of the proponents of gun control would prefer to see an all-out ban on guns and are planning on achieving this goal incrementally". The existence of that premise means that you are still using deductive logic and not using a false analogy.

    The gay marriage thing is a slippery slope argument because it is not supported by evidence. There exists no premise that "Gay marriage is being fought for so that the ultimate ends of marrying a goat can occur". It is inductive and employs a false analogy.

    Just clarifying the differences.

  3. #33
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    09-26-16 @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: The Slippery Slope arguement

    We're a nation that believes in the rule of law and an important part of our legal system is precedent. So a good slippery slope argument would be like this: "Your logic for supporting position A is this. Applying that logic as precedent it could be used to justify X, Y, and Z." That's a fair question and reasonable look at the possible unintended consequences of certain actions.

    When the slippery slope gets a bad rap is its often combined with strawmen to apply a whole new argument to get some radical extreme result. Like the argument that gay marriage would lead to people marrying their pets. No one has removed or even questioned the idea of consenting adults with legal standing being the only ones eligible for marriage, so saying gay marriage will lead to beastiality marriages is just silly.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,633

    Re: The Slippery Slope arguement

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    typical liberal response. let's pretend our actions don't have ramifications, that precedents don't matter, blah blah blah.
    It's not that actions cannot have ramifications, it's the assertion that an action will have massive ramifications down the road that cannot be demonstrated, cannot be supported, only asserted.

    That's why the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  5. #35
    Banned Intransigent Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Last Seen
    03-13-12 @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    447

    Re: The Slippery Slope arguement

    I find the "Slippery Slope Argument" to be a fallacy most of the time. The challenge being to go from A > B > C > D, etc... In order for your chain to work you have to be careful to show each contingency to be factually established before a relevant conclusion can be drawn.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •