# Is there a name for this debate tactic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 20, 2020, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699 "2020-01-20T13:48:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ecks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bcef8e/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ecks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ecks)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/1 "2020-01-20T13:48:37Z")
Person A: I’m for X! Person B: But what if X is going to destroy the world? If person A doesn’t care, then they can be dismissed as a dangerous fanatic. If they agree X would need need to be banned or limited in that case, the B gets to say, well we agree then, our only difference is degree, and surely we can compromise on that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/2 "2020-01-20T15:33:14Z")
It sounds like a version of the slippery slope argument. I’m assuming A isn’t arguing for an end to the world and therefore they’re arguing for an amount of X that wouldn’t cause a disaster. B is countering by saying that a much larger amount of X than A is talking about would be a disaster. Getting from the amount A is talking about to the amount B is talking about requires a slippery slope. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/3 "2020-01-20T15:37:06Z")
I don’t see any special tactic here, just a normal debate. > [@Johnny\_Ecks](#): > > If person A doesn’t care … If they agree … You’re missing a third possibility, that they might disagree. I might feel that X is NOT going to destroy the world. And from that point, that’s what the debate will focus on: whether X will destroy the world or not. Sounds to me like a productive conversation, not an underhanded “tactic”. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/4 "2020-01-20T15:44:32Z")
It’s sort of the inverse of “don’t fight the hypothetical”. Person B is posing a hypothetical that, _if true_ , would compromise Person A’s position. But the possibility is described as if it were _not_ hypothetical whereas (as **Keeve** just pointed out) the relevant debate would involve fighting the hypothetical, i.e. questioning the legitimacy of posing that as if it were indeed known to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/5 "2020-01-20T16:58:32Z")
There’s a whiff of false dichotomy here - is there no passage for discourse about how X could be accepted, in such a way that the world-ending features may be mitigated? I mean, unless X is a literal doomsday device, then the argument ‘accept it and damn the consequences!’ vs “no, it will end the world”’ just needs to get into the detail. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/6 "2020-01-20T17:17:59Z")
I’m all for gay marriage. But it could destroy our society. As my sister says "Spare me from the might maybes of the world. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/7 "2020-01-20T22:39:31Z")
Appeal to Consequences. > **[Appeal to consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)** > > Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or unde In... ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/8 "2020-01-20T22:49:01Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > Appeal to Consequences. > > [Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) Fits pretty well, with the extreme and almost certainly irrational nature of the consequence being especially destructive to reasoned discourse. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/9 "2020-01-20T23:15:04Z")
There’s no fallacy here. If you’re making a decision that results in catastrophic consequences, those consequences factor in the validity of the decision. i.e. A: “I’m shutting off the containment grid because your permits are out of order.” B: “Ghosts will flood Manhattan if you do.” Assuming A and B are both correct, then it’s inarguably a bad decision. The only debate is whether B is accurate or not. If we agree A and B are both accurate, we might be getting toward excluded middle fallacy, but we also might just be having a normal argument over values judgments (“will anyone really notice if ghosts flood Manhattan? Perhaps they’re friendly ghosts?”). Here is a proper representation of appeal to consequences with extinction-level stakes: A: “By my calculation, Manhattan is experiencing an epic surge in PKE energy.” B: “But that would mean the gates of hell will open and unleash demons on the city!” If B is just making an exclamation, that just means he’s very distressed. If B thinks his statement invalidates the logic of A, then he has committed an appeal to consequences fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-debate-tactic/846699/10 "2020-01-20T23:32:17Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Assuming A and B are both correct, then it’s inarguably a bad decision. The only debate is whether B is accurate or not. If we agree A and B are both accurate, we might be getting toward excluded middle fallacy, but we also might just be having a normal argument over values judgments (“will anyone really notice if ghosts flood Manhattan? Perhaps they’re friendly ghosts?”). I missed the 5th edit window here. I mean to say that if A is a choice, and we assume A and B are both correct, and B is inarguably unacceptable, then A is automatically unacceptable. Different conversation if B is demonstrably false, or there exist lesser degrees of B that might be acceptable. If A is not a choice, but a true/false statement, we can’t deny A by saying its truth would literally destroy the earth. We have to evaluate A based on the supporting evidence and be prepared to phone our moms one last time.