Doublespeak argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (December 2007) |
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (October 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
A doublespeak argument is the name given to an argument, or debate, where one or more sides seems to be using reasonings that are not the real reasonings for that side. This is usually alleged to have been done because the real reasonings may be offensive or counterproductive in some way, and that side feels that its other reasonings will be strong enough to win the debate. Such an argument is fallacious because the reasons given, though valid and relevant, are false, and therefore if the argument were rendered null by a concession from the opposing side, the opposition would still exist.
[edit] Hypothetical examples
A tobacco company may oppose a cigarette tax because it threatens to reduce smoking and therefore reduce profits. The company's public argument, however, may be that smokers are poorer than the general population, so a tobacco tax unfairly burdens the poor. The tobacco company may not actually be concerned about the well-being of the poor, evidenced by how it already addicts said poor to a costly product that will end up killing many of them. But the "hurts the poor" argument may evoke more sympathy than the "hurts our profits" argument.
A person may oppose the use of condoms because of a moral belief that sex should only occur between married couples for the purpose of procreation. If, however, the target of this person's arguments are people who may already be inclined to have premarital or recreational sex or may simply not agree with such moral beliefs, the condom opponent may instead argue that condoms cannot be trusted because they are not 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs. Yet the opponent of condom use would continue to oppose condom use even if condoms were 100 percent effective, as the opponent's concern is not rooted in preventing pregnancies or making premarital or recreational sex safe.
