What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric? It also shows the mistake underlying all poisoning of the well, since the sex of the arguer is irrelevant to … Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864). The well has been poisoned, and the mayor is in a difficult position." The Washington Post, Aug. 7, 2009), "I leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. This illustrates the effect that poisoning the well tends to have, which is to forestall opposition in debate. [1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength. Pingback: Let’s play Trump speech bingo! To supplement Walton’s definition, the poisoning the well fallacy is the commission of the ad hominem fallacy where the objectivity of the arguer is called into question by implicitly or explicitly suggesting s/he has a vested in the topic. Example: Boss, you heard my side of the story why I think Bill should be fired and not me. "Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." It would certainly be fallacious to ignore evidence or arguments from the parties to a dispute based on their having a vested interest in the outcome; but it is not a fallacy to distrust the independence of their *judgement* in such cases. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Just as it isn’t always irrelevant to point to conflicts of interest to impugn someone’s objectivity, it isn’t always fallacious to argue that your opponents’ position suffers from the same flaw they point to in yours, it’s not always fallacious to appeal to authority, it’s not always fallacious to maintain that some alleged Scotsman is in fact not a true Scotsman, it’s not always fallacious to argue that some action or policy should be rejected on the grounds that it will have negative long-term consequences, etc. No doubt Trump’s comments about judge Curiel are ethnically insensitive and politically destructive. (Abusive), "My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn’t.". "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart." Now, I am sure Bill is going to come to you with some pathetic attempt to weasel out of this lie that he has created. (Robert J. Gula, Nonsense. This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. There are many ways of discrediting the person. Talk about their lies. He’s a rat. ', "I reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. As an argument form it is not valid, yet it is an incredibly effective rhetorical tool that gets used quite regularly. A good example would be introducing an argument that you disagree with by using the phrase 'Do you believe this rubbish?' Anyone exposed to the basics of critical thinking ought to be able to spot the fallacy a mile away. The dialectical water well, so to speak, is thus poisoned since anything the arguer says is subject to suspicion on the basis of a presumed conflict of interest. Any how, if Mr. Kingsley is able thus to practise upon my readers, the more I succeed, the less will be my success. Change ). 2. Before Class: As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. Show them to be unworthy. ), A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:[citation needed]. And there's no better season for all of these to erupt in the media than during a national election, especially for US President. You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend’s boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. Controversies should be decided by the reason; is it legitimate warfare to appeal to the misgivings of the public mind and to its dislikings? Example: "Don't support or vote for Hillary Clinton! Very much on target. In this pattern, an unfavorable attribute is ascribed to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. Trump’s comments will be memory-holed only to be replaced by a more degenerate and blatant set of comments as the national conversation has already ceded territory to terrorism, radical Islam, the prospect of banning Muslims US entry, and “crooked” Hillary Clinton. | candid sparrow. This "argument" has the following form: This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The point isn’t that it is argumentatively wrong to bring up race as a basis to call into question someone’s neutrality. Surely this can’t be the lesson. Examples of Poisoning the Well "Don’t listen to him, he’s a scoundrel." She's been a puppet of the neoconservative establishment since before her … ( Log Out / There’s no reason why the objection to Trump should be one or the other rather than both. Argument from oh bloody hell that was years ago, Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, Negative conclusion from affirmative premises, https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Poisoning_the_well&oldid=2239801. 'Will you or will you not go steady with me? Incidentally, I was rather disturbed to discover that Trump (or anyone) could in principle face legal sanctions for making the claim he made (on grounds of contempt of court). I agree that it’s curious that hardly anybody has pointed out the general fallacy involved, and that it matters that Trump, like so many others, gets away with the fallacy even when he’s called out for other aspects of what he’s said. Loaded and complex question fallacies are closely related to poisoned wells. But the whole system of having judges is based precisely on the idea that people cannot be relied upon to be impartial whether they have a vested interest at stake. My opponent has donated millions to oil companies. I think shouting must be a fallacy too.'" (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. The skull and crossbones magnet is available from AllPosters. An enemy, when he poisons a well, ruins the water; no matter how good or how pure the water was, it is now tainted and hence unusable. How can I tell that I shall not be the dupe of some cunning equivocation?". Now, I am sure that Mr. Jones is going to come and tell you some lie about how I was disrespectful, when really he was the one who was rude to me. (Max Shulman, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. There are few commonly committed logical fallacies more annoying to run into than the fallacy of poisoning the well. It comes from the UK’s Guardian: Trump’s broadsides against Judge Curiel certainly crossed a line. This illustrates the effect that poisoning the well tends to have, which is to forestall opposition in debate. Curiously, some have called for judge Curiel to recuse himself from the case to avoid signalling a hint of bias. A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form: Poisoned-well arguments are sometimes used with preemptive invocations of the association fallacy. 'The rat!' I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist." Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 23. ", After Class: Dr. Richard Nordquist is professor emeritus of rhetoric and English at Georgia Southern University and the author of several university-level grammar and composition textbooks. Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. The presumptive GOP nominee suggested that the judge’s “bad decisions” against him were not the result of Curiel’s interpretation of the law, but rather because, as Trump put it, he’s a “Mexican” (Curiel was born in Indiana). How can the mayor respond? By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. Principal Marks, I have told you my side of the story. No doubt one could always find a woman to advance the argument, whatever it is. For instance: Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity.