Setting the rules of logical argument aside

Why do people argue poorly? In some cases, it’s because they just don’t know how to argue well. They don’t know that, e.g. guilt-by-association and straw men are poor arguments.

Others do know that those kinds of arguments are poor, but fail to see when they use them themselves. They have self-serving biases, and therefore don’t notice their own fallacies.

Still others may use fallacies deliberately in order to win the debate.

All of these explanations are commonly suggested. But I don’t think they are exhaustive. Sometimes you see smart people who have at least some degree of intellectual honesty make fallacies that seem pretty obvious - so obvious that they would scarcely deny that they from one perspective could be seen as fallacies. Anecdotal evidence is a common example on Twitter.

Instead, their defence would be a different one. They weren’t even trying to make valid arguments. They and their followers were emotionally upset about something, and they tried to express these emotions in the catchiest possible way. So what may look like guilt-by-association, straw man arguments, anecdotal evidence, or hyperbole shouldn’t be seen as such. It wasn’t an argument - it was just an expression of emotions.

Of course, they don’t explicitly state that they set the rules of logical argument aside in this way. Nor is it very obvious. On the face of it, it seems like they’re making normal moves within the game of logical argumentation, that we supposedly are playing. It’s only if pressed that they would say or imply that they aren’t; that they shouldn’t be taken so literally. They’re making motte-and-baileys, in other words.

In my view, we should by and large not tolerate these kinds of moves. They harm our collective truth-seeking. In a debate, you’re supposed to give valid and reasonable arguments. You can’t defend your fallacies by saying you weren’t even trying.