The Art of Debate

I have an opinion based upon my knowledge, experience, beliefs and attitudes.

You have an opinion based upon your knowledge, experience, beliefs and attitudes.

When we undertake to discuss these opinions we will often make a statement which we believe to be ‘true’ based upon ‘what we know’.

When we discuss personal truths our emotions get in the way and so debate can fall into adversarial and personal conflict very quickly.

If we are serious about having the debate and learning from the sharing of each others experience then it is worth considering a way of doing so constructively.

For me choosing to enter into a debate has the element of playfulness, sometimes from the devils advocate position, and intellectual challenge. There is also the desire to test “what I think I know” against the expertise of others and if presented with compelling argument to be willing to reconsider my own position and opinion.

The following framework for debate is one suggested by my use of Edward de Bono’s thinking tools.

The process involves the collective ‘mind power’ of all engaged in the debate.

A statement is made.

As such it will have an emotional hook for the person making the statement.

All parties explore the evidence and information there is on offer about this statement.

This evidence must be able to be verified.

It is not about more opinion and rhetoric, but about what others (outside of the debate) have published and said about the issue. All evidence pertinent to the statement is included no mater whose original position it seems to support.

The relevance of this shared evidence is assessed as to its relationship with the original statement. In essence the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the information offered needs to be discussed.

Those involved with the debate need to consider what other evidence would be useful in exploring the statement. If necessary they could see if this evidence exists (if it does then its relevance can be assessed) and if it does not exist then thought be put into how this evidence could be obtained.

Only when these previous steps have been followed can individuals reassess the initial statement in the light of what is now known, or perhaps what is yet to be discovered.

At this point we’re back to the emotional connection individuals have to the initial statement. If they are being true to the spirit of debate it may well be that the statement can be rejected, upheld or redefined.

The process can start again with the next (new) statement,

This very simple process means that all are engaged in exploration of an issue rather than taking an adversarial stance from the outset. We are capitalising on the collective minds of the people involved rather than the regular divide and conquer of traditional debate.

For those experienced in some of Dr de Bono’s tools you will recognise the “red”, “white”, “yellow”, “black”, “green”, “red” sequence of the framework. For those wanting to know more then contact me on the address below.

Logical Fallacies

In an original statement or in the debate that follows it may be possible to identify some simple flaws in logic.

Some of the more obvious of these logical fallacies include:-

The Argument from Authority

This is where a statement is said to be true simply because of the authority, or presumed authority of the person making the statement.

The Argument from Ignorance

Making the assumption something is true or false depending upon whether the speaker knows it to be true or false

Argument from Incredulity

When what is being presented is beyond the listeners level of current knowledge or understanding.

The Argument from Antiquity

The assumption that because an idea or statement comes from an ancient or historical source it is true or valid

The Ancient Chinese practised Tai Chi so it must be beneficial…

The Argument from Popularity

The notion that just because something is popular it must be true (or false)

Everyone has been finding that this works so it must do something….

Naturalistic Fallacy

The argument that because something is natural it is necessarily good, beneficial or pleasant

Post Hoc Ero Propter Hoc (after this therefore because of this)

The idea that because one event follows another then the first event must have caused the second… This is often noticed when there is an mathematical correlation which does not necessarily have a causal link,

Statistically there may be a correlation between the number of storks and the number of births but assume the one causes or is related to the other is fallacious

Red Herring

When the person presenting the argument moves away from the question at hand in an attempt to distract the listener

OK, well what about the Big Bang, where did it all come from, and we know that scientists get things wrong – I mean they were wrong about……

Retrospective Determinism

The idea that because some event has occurred then it must have been inevitable.

The Tsunami was always going to happen and was always going to happen because….

Cherry Picking

Ignoring the breadth of information or research available and only picking that which supports the argument.

Teleological Fallacy

This is the notion that some idea has a purpose and that that alone means that it must be true.

(OK so I’ve also hidden a circular argument in that example, but I think it still makes sense)

False Analogy

Making a link between two unrelated observations or situations where no link exists…

Appeal to Emotions

A frequently used technique where the argument stands or falls on an appeal not to logic or fact but to emotions such as fear, desire, hope, love, belonging. Really easy to spot in TV adverts where imagery is used to link a desire to a product.


Poisoning the Well

A particular Appeal to Emotions which connects ideas in such away as to discredit the source of the idea.

Well look, Hitler used Darwin’s ideas…

Appeal to Flattery

An argument which presupposes that accepting it is what all good, intelligent, honest, worthy or just people do.

Ad Hominem

Where the person presenting the argument is attacked and not the substance of the argument.

Sharpshooter Fallacy

Picking the target of your comment or idea or proof after the event in order to prove you are right

Historians Fallacy

The assumption that people, and decision makers, of the past perceived events from the same perspective and with the same information that we have today…

Next time you listen to a debate, or read about the latest craze see if you can question the logic behind the information you are expected to take at face value.


Let’s look at an article from the Daily Mail


Vaccines are like Russian roulette – we’d rather take a chance with the diseases, say parents who refuse to give their babies jabs.

The headline is an appeal to emotions and a particularly dramatic false anaology.

There is also a suggest appeal to popularity (parents) implies a number of people hold the same view.


When Max Sullivan was born two years ago, his father Paul, a 41-year-old IT consultant, and his accountant mother Karen, 34, were prepared for their first foray into parenthood.

An immediate appeal to authority – an IT consultant must be savvy?

An appeal to emotion – connecting the reader to the parents

“We bought the best pram we could, a Bugaboo. It’s like a tank,” says Paul.
“We checked toys were safe and bought stair-gates and caps for the corners of the tables for when he started walking. And when he was two months old we followed the doctor’s orders and took him for his first set of immunisations: the five-in-one jab that combines the DPT – diphtheria, pertissus (whooping cough) and tetanus, polio and Hib (haemophilus influenzae type B) vaccines.

Note the use of the phrase “doctors orders” – the article is already casting the likeable, smart and caring parents as being antagonised by the Doctor.

“We took him for boosters at three and four months, as instructed.”

Again “instructed” when read in conjunction with the previous statement of ‘doctors orders’ seems to be moving towards an appeal to emotion (fear, mistrust?)

The couple were model parents. But then Paul and Karen received a letter inviting Max to have the new meningitis C jab.

Non sequiteur – what does being a model parent have to do with receiving a letter? {Possibly a Red Herring)

“It seemed like too much to be giving such a tiny baby,” says Paul.

Argument from incredulity – what does Paul really know about medicine?

“We started to look into it online and read reports of headaches and swollen arms to meningitis-like symptoms that have put some children in hospital.

Argument from Popularity – what if anything is the internet, but a collection of popular comments and a range of articles from individuals of varying expertise, Search engines can be regarded as presenting the popular sites in preference to sites of authority.

“The nurse did call and try to persuade us but she couldn’t provide us with hard facts about how safe it was and we decided to call things to a halt.”

Interesting – what ‘hard facts’ were required. Also what about hard facts about unsafe it was not to vaccinate?

The couple chose to stop vaccinating their son and instead use a healthy diet to boost his immune system.

Naturalistic Fallacy perhaps – the reference to some kind of unspecified ‘health diet’, There is also a potential false analogy (a healthy diet boosts the immune system) and a real lack of understanding of ‘boosting the immune system’ which would need further information from medical specialists.


They claim they were “unnerved” by the uncertainty surrounding the effects that vaccinations can have on children, in the wake of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccination (MMR) scandal that controversially linked the triple jab to autism.

Appeal the emotions – uncertainty.

Unsubstantiated claim – not a fallacy as such, but the “scandal that controversially linked the triple jab to autism”…

However it does contain a post hoc ergo propter hoc assertion… vaccines cause autism

Max remains vulnerable to life-threatening diseases having not been vaccinated against meningitis C, pneumococcal – an infection that can lead to pneumonia or septicaemia – measles, mumps and rubella.
He will also not be given boosters to assure continued immunity to diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough or polio.

“We believe there is a problem with vaccines in general – the MMR debate just put a spotlight on the issue,” says Paul.

The personal belief statement could be considered as an argument from ignorance and in this case suggests that there is a gap in the knowledge and understanding of recent information related to vaccines.

The media can be accused of using a headline which promotes a particular idea – that vaccines are as risky as playing Russian Roulette. Yet the article presents no actual evidence or information about vaccines or the MMR ‘controversy’,

The use of the word ‘controversy’ implies that there is a controversy over the main theme of the article – safety, This in turn implies (especially by its reference to a nurse who had ‘no hard facts’) that the controversy is a medical-scientific one.

There is so much room in this article for debate, but if I go back to my thinking frame work then we need to ask a very simple question.

What evidence is there for vaccines being ‘unsafe’?

Putting behind us all of the emotions related to families who are experiencing autism first hand, the real issue is about the facts, evidence and ideas put forward by those who have expertise in the area of vaccinations.

This is an exercise that you might like to do for yourself, if this issue interest you, but perhaps I can throw in a couple of ideas to start your research.


The blog Neurologica
The blog/podcast Quackwatch
The podcast Skeptoid

Then search

Wakefield + BMA
Herd Immunity
Mercury in Vaccines
Mercury in Vaccines + Skeptic
Vaccines and Autism
Vaccines and Autism + Skeptic

The firs few pages of a Google web search for MMR and Vaccines will produce host of site sponsored by, or endorsed by the anti-vaccination lobby, If information is what you are seeking and not endorsement of an existing belief you need to avoid the temptation to ‘cherry pick’; question ‘arguments from popularity” and arguments purely from “authority”.

In terms of authority I would prefer to take my information from those working directly in the field rather than the celebrities who take positions which may not be based upon sound research and empirical evaluation.

But that’s just me….

Daily Mail Article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-557442/Vaccines-like-Russian-roulette–wed-chance-diseases-say-parents-refuse-babies-jabs.html#ixzz13CGYAlIO