"Whataboutisms" and other logical fallacies

 

What happens when the ideologically possessed on both sides of the debate share the same unreasoned tactics?

What do both sides of the left versus right discussion share? The use of logical fallacies! Particularly the one best known as red herring. Because of this I have grown heartily sick and tired of attempting to reason with people who obviously do not understand the rules of debate. Since I expect this of the left, I find it truly concerning that people who claim to believe in individual liberty use their enemy’s tactics!

What is a “Red Herring Fallacy”?

A red herring is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. It introduces an irrelevant topic into the discussion to distract from the original issue.

Example:

·       Topic: "We need to address government overreach."

·       Red Herring Response: "But what about the economy? People are struggling to find jobs."

While the economy is important, it doesn't address the argument about autocratic government rather it shifts the focus.

Related Fallacies:

Depending on how the shift is used, it might also resemble:

·       Straw Man – misrepresenting the original argument to make it easier to attack.

·       Ad Hominem – attacking the person instead of the argument.

·       Whataboutism – a subtype of red herring where someone responds to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or bringing up a different issue. This obvious obfuscation really cheeses my buns since no reasonable response is most often successful in returning the conversation back to the original topic.

So let me help you with identifying this fallacy in a specific example or conversation:

A judge would throw any such argument out of the case if a lawyer was to pull any of these tricks. In a courtroom setting, logical fallacies such as red herring arguments, straw man arguments, or whataboutism would be quickly dismissed by a judge, especially if used by a lawyer to deflect from the actual legal issues at hand. Judges are trained to focus strictly on the relevant facts and applicable law. If a lawyer tries to distract from the core issue by introducing unrelated topics or emotional appeals, it would:

·       Undermine their credibility,

·       Be objected to by opposing counsel,

·       And harm their case.

In legal terms, this kind of tactic would be seen as irrelevant argumentation or improper rebuttal and would be challenged under the rules of evidence and procedure. So, let us explore how these fallacies show up in legal arguments or debates in a broader context while looking at examples. So, how do logical fallacies—especially red herrings and related tactics—appear in legal arguments, and how would judges typically respond to them?

🔍 Real-World Example: Red Herring in Court

Case Scenario:
 Imagine a criminal trial where the defendant is accused of embezzling funds from a company.

Defence Argument (Red Herring):

“My client has donated thousands to charity and volunteers every weekend. Clearly, they are a good person.”

Why It’s a Fallacy:
 This argument introduces irrelevant information (charitable behaviour) to distract from the actual charge of embezzlement. While character evidence can sometimes be admissible, it doesn’t address whether the crime occurred.

The Judge’s Likely Response:
 The judge would likely sustain an objection to this line of reasoning if it’s not directly relevant to the facts of the case or be admissible under rules of evidence. The focus must remain on whether the defendant committed the crime.

⚖️ Other Common Fallacies in Legal Arguments

1. Straw Man

·       Example: “The prosecution wants you to believe my client is a monster.”

·       Reality: The prosecution may simply be arguing that the defendant committed a specific illegal act.

·       Judge’s Response: May allow it briefly as rhetoric, it weakens credibility if it misrepresents the opposing argument.

2. Ad Hominem

·       Example: “The witness is just a bitter ex-employee, so nothing they say should be trusted.”

·       Fallacy: Attacking the person instead of the substance of their testimony.

·       Judge’s Response: May allow limited character questioning, but not as a substitute for factual rebuttal.

3. Appeal to Emotion

·       Example: “Imagine how devastated the citizens must have felt during otherwise peaceful protests.”

·       Fallacy: Trying to sway the jury with emotion rather than evidence.

·       Judge’s Response: May caution the attorney if it becomes manipulative or prejudicial.

🧠 Why Judges Reject These Tactics

Judges are bound by:

·       Rules of Evidence (e.g., relevance, hearsay, character evidence)

·       Procedural Fairness

·       Precedent and Legal Standards

Fallacious reasoning undermines the integrity of the legal process and can lead to:

·       Objections being sustained

·       Evidence being excluded

·       Jury instructions to disregard certain statements

 

So let us examine how these fallacies are handled and explore how to spot them in political or media debates.

How to spot logical fallacies in everyday conversations, media, and debates—and how to argue effectively without falling into them!

🔍 How to Spot Logical Fallacies

Let us review common fallacies and how they show up in everyday examples:

1. Red Herring

• Clue: The person changes the subject to something unrelated.
• Example: “We shouldn’t worry about governmental overspending when there are people who don’t have jobs.”
• Spot It: Ask yourself—Does this address the original issue directly?

2. Straw Man

• Clue: Someone oversimplifies or misrepresents your argument.
• Example: “If you do not want the health care system to increase its spending you don’t want people to have ready access to proper health care!” Ignoring the fact that wasted funding has failed to increase the efficiency of health care expenditures.
• Spot It: Compare what was said to what was being argued.

3. Ad Hominem

• Clue: Attacking the person instead of the idea.
• Example: “Because you’re white you do not understand minority issues”.
• Spot It: Is the criticism about the ethnic identity of the person or the argument?

4. Appeal to Emotion

• Clue: Using fear, pity, or flattery to persuade.
• Example: “If you don’t vote for me social welfare projects are doomed.”
• Spot It: Is the argument based on facts or feelings?

5. Whataboutism

• Clue: Responding to criticism with a different issue.
• Example: “You say our policy is flawed, but what about your party’s mistakes?”
• Spot It: Is this a deflection rather than a rebuttal?

🧠 How to Argue Effectively Without Fallacies

Here are some strategies to keep your arguments strong and logical:

✅ 1. Stay on Topic

• Always respond directly to the point being made.
• If you need to shift topics, explain why it’s relevant.

✅ 2. Steelman Instead of Strawman

• Present the strongest version of your opponent’s argument before responding.
• This shows respect and strengthens your credibility.

✅ 3. Use Evidence

• Support claims with data, examples, or expert opinions.
• Avoid relying solely on anecdotes or emotional appeals.

✅ 4. Acknowledge Complexity

• Avoid oversimplifying issues.
• Recognize nuance and admit when there are multiple sides.

✅ 5. Stay Respectful

• Focus on ideas, not personalities.
• Avoid sarcasm or insults—they weaken your position.

And if you cannot manage to discuss topics with me respectfully, you will have provided me with permission to use all the tools of reasoned debate at my disposal to demonstrate that you are an unreasoned fool! Let me be crystal clear, I am not saying that I am smarter or better informed than any of you. Therefore, I simply cannot imagine how this could be possible. What I have shared here is common knowledge available for all to consider. So, I beg of you, please do not prove to me that I am either better informed or smarter than you since if this is true, we are all well and truly screwed beyond repair! This is better known as FUBAR!