What type of fallacy is slippery slope

It is a type of informal fallacy and, more specifically, it falls into the category of conditional fallacies. A slippery slope argument is committed when one argues, without providing adequate evidence, that a relatively insignificant event or course of action will lead to a chain of consequences, eventually resulting in some significant outcome.

The conclusion of the argument, or the culmination of the chain of events, is seen as unacceptable and therefore the first decision that would eventually lead to that outcome should be rejected. Logic is a useful tool in this process, but it is not the only tool -- after all, "plausibility" is a fairly subjective matter that does not follow strict logical rules. Ultimately, the judge in a debate round has to decide which side's position is more plausible in light of the arguments given -- and the judge is required to pick one of those sides, even if logic alone dictates that "we do not know" is the answer to the question at hand.

Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught. Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it.

Much of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn't be taken seriously, or whatever. That kind of response is fine, except that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it's important after all. On the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all.

If they can't come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the round. It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments.

Here are a few strategies I've found useful in pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner:. Argumentum ad antiquitatem the argument to antiquity or tradition. This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way.

Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection.

This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone. Argumentum ad hominem argument directed at the person. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater e. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?

In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value made by interested parties.

If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist. Argumentum ad ignorantiam argument to ignorance. This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true. Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually but not always assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition.

Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition. Argumentum ad logicam argument to logic. This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.

This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not.

If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments not presented by the proposing team that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument.

For further commentary on burdens of proof, see argumentum ad ignorantiam , above. Argumentum ad misericordiam argument or appeal to pity. The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them? It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution.

The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear and hence capable of justifying larger costs.

Argumentum ad nauseam argument to the point of disgust; i. This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. This kicks off a series of consequences:. Babies and toddlers cry a lot, like during sleep training. The strategy leans on the psychology of the slippery slope argument. In a TV commercial , two men are seen seated outside. One of them is eating a bag of Ruffles potato chips. The other man asks if he can have one. To this, the first man responds with the line above.

The camera pans out to reveal they are the only two people amidst a vast frozen tundra. A lone wolf howls in the distance. Examples of slippery slopes usually involve multiple steps.

However, they can also consist of a wild leap in just two steps, as illustrated by this commercial. A slippery slope argument shifts attention from the issue at hand to a hypothetical outcome, offering little or no proof that outcome is likely. All rights reserved.

Maria: Yeah, he should have. Juan : Sure, most people think that you can justify lies that protect your country in wartime. But then, of course, lying could be justified to protect your country in times of peace. Then, government officials become capable of justifying lying about all their activities.

Now you can be sure that since he is accomplished at justifying his lies, he tells lies whenever he feels like it. Now, we can never trust a thing he says. Today, women want the vote. Tomorrow, they'll want to be doctors and lawyers, and then combat soldiers. Give them that, and before long, they'll insist on taking the initiative in sex. If you want to protect the very meaning of masculinity, you must deny them suffrage.

First we loosen up the laws against abortion.