# Is there a name for this type of debating tactic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 29, 2002, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381 "2002-10-29T10:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/21 "2002-10-29T17:39:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aahala \* > \*\* > > Whoa. Any money spend on item A is not available for items B thru infinity. > > If I buy a stick of gum, that money is not available for my retirement or a trip to Europe. I may still have money left to do those things, but spending money on one thing reduces the amount available for everything else. At least in my experience. \*\* Yes, but spending money on counterterrorism doesn’t reduce the funds avaible for anti-smokimg measures specifically. If B’s argument about the importance of anti-smoking measures is valid, it is valid not just against proposals for new expenditures on counterterrorism, but for new expenditures on any objective, or indeed for the maintenance of existing expenditures on any objective, or indeed for the continuation of any level of expenditure at all on any objective at all. Alternatively, B could insert any other policy objective into his argument against counterterrorims in place of the policy of promoting anti-smoking measures, and his argument would be just as strong, or just as weak. B draws a specific link between expenditure on counterterrorism and expenditure on anti-smoking meausures, because the objective of both is to save lives. But the link is bogus; just because they have some degree of commonality in their objective doesn’t mean that the two expenditures are linked any more than any two randomly-selected items of expenditure. Both are small parts of the “universe” of government expenditure. They can be adjusted upwards or downwards quite independently of one another, and enormous expenditures on non-life saving objectives, such as agricultural subsidies or education adjusted to absorb this. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/22 "2002-10-29T18:21:44Z")
UDS I certainly agree with the first paragraph of your last post. B could have offered any counterclaim as to resource allocation. And I also agree his particular claim is weak. Where we differ apparently, is I don’t believe a claim based upon resources or prioriities, is a “logical fallacy”, which was the original question. The strength of B’s statement is not the same as its logical merit. IMO, B’s statement is relevant and not self-contradictory, therefore no logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/23 "2002-10-29T18:34:10Z")
Well, yes, but B’s argument is I]not\* based on the objective of using resources efficiently. He doesn’t claim that as his argument, and his position is not consistent with that objective. If it was, he would argue for expenditure on anti-smoking measures _instead of_ expenditure on counterterrorism, but he argues for spending on both. If his argument is based on effeciency, he would urge spending on whichever program would save more lives per dollar spent. Arguing that the money should be divided between the two programmes means that some at least of the money must be spend in the less efficient programme I still believe that B is making a link between the two expenditures because both are for life-saving objectives, and he believes it is “unfair” to increase expenditure on one objective without also increasing expenditure on the other, regardless of efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/24 "2002-10-29T19:49:58Z")
UDS You must have changed your view on B’s motivation. If “he argues for spending on both”, how is that consistent with your earlier view that he was setting up a false dilemma? Back on point, I think your view of B is plausible, even though I don’t share it. I think it leads to the same conclusion as my view however, there’s no logical fallacy in B’s statement. We know from the original post that there was a disagreement over policy. That’s a given, based upon the title of the thread. There was a debate – you can’t really have a debate over taste. Even though the statement includes the word “unfair”, it could hardly be a subject for debate, as fairness depends entirely upon the speaker. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2002, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/25 "2002-10-29T22:54:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Hi, **Mangetout**! \*\* Erm… Hail Eris! 😕 ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/26 "2002-10-30T10:13:51Z")
No, I still think B is setting up a false dilemma. Whether he is arguing on the grounds of fairness or efficiency – and you certainly _can_ debate what is fair and what is unfair – he is positing a particular link between expenditure on counterterrorism and expenditure on anti-smoking measures which simply doesn’t exist (except in the sense that every conceivable expenditure or revenue decision is linked to every other conceiveable expenditure or revenue decision, which is not a meaningful link). From that he argues that a decision about expenditure on counterterrorism cannot or should not be made independently of a decision about expenditure on anti-smoking measures - and he is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Agback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Agback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agback)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/27 "2002-10-30T17:18:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UDS \* > \*\*It’s still a false dilemma. The point is that there is no particular link between the two issues which Person B has sought to link. We can address one issue, or not, without regard to the decision we take about addressing the other issue (and vice versa). Thus person B’s position is fallacious even before we look at the substance of the second problem he has raised. \*\* No, that isn’t true. The two problems are linked because any measures to address either one would require real resources, and real resources are limited. To a certain extent effort put into counter-terrorism makes less effort available to combat smoking. For example, if we posted armed agents to prevent the importation of tobacco, and sent planes equipped with high-tech detectors up to discover hidden tobacco farms, that would mean that we had less equipment and fewer suitable people to devote to security efforts. IF B had argued “We can’t do 1 because we have to do 2”, when it is possible to do both, that would be false dichotomy. But his argument is “2 would be more benefit than 1, and we don’t bother with 2. So why should we bother with 1.” To point out that you can do both does not address this argument. Regards, Agback ---
**Author:** ![Agback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Agback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agback)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381/28 "2002-10-30T17:22:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UDS \* > \*\*That’s clearly a false dilemma. We are presented with two options - legalise eating swans, or criminalise eating geese. There is a third option, which is to leave matters as they are. \*\* And a fourth, which is to criminalise eating geese and legalise eating swans. Regards, Agback [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-type-of-debating-tactic/134381.md?page=1)