Good arguments

Okay, folks, time for another of St. Caffeine's pet peeves. Excited, aren't ya'? Well, here goes: sloppy arguments! If you know me well, you'll know that I love a good debate. Now I'm not saying I personally like to argue with people. In fact, I'm quite confrontation-averse. I do, though, enjoy a good debate: one where both sides have good facts and string together cohesive arguments. As a sign of this, I think my absolute favorite class in college might have been "intro to logic".

Unfortunately most people today take the "I'll outshout you" approach to debate. I won't even go off on that nasty trend, but there's a more subtle type of "debate abuse" that bothers me almost as much. I call it the "Someone Famous Agrees With Me, Hence I Must Be Right" approach. Yeah, I don't think that name will catch on. Let's just call it the Someone Sez approach.

Basically what I'm talking about is finding a famous quote and using that quote as PROOF of the superiority of your position. Don't get me wrong; I love a good quote and I've used them for years in school papers and speeches. The point I'm trying to make, though, is that a quote, by itself, does not make your argument. Er, you still need supporting evidence!

What has brought this to my attention lately? I'll tell you: Ben Franklin and the Patriot Act (and all other national security issues of the last few years). I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen the following quote in a letter to the editor or an opinion column:

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

That's a noble sentiment and old Ben was a pretty wise fellow, but parroting his words does not mean that the Patriot Act is a bad idea. Personally, I have a lot of problems with portions of the act (see earlier 1st Amendment rants), but this does not "prove" anything. You still need some supporting evidence.

See, that's the problem. Letter writers invoke the Someone Sez argument and then sign off. They don't actually show that Ben's statement is true and relevant in the context of the current argument. To show the folly of this, consider this from Winston Churchill:

In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

Using this quote, W's eavesdropping is justified. Does Churchill's quote make that claim true? No. Nor do Franklin's words invalidate the Patriot Act. [ALERT: I think it should be clear that I'm not arguing for or against) the Patriot Act, I'm just pointing out some holes in common arguments.]

While I was on the topic, I found a couple of more examples of Someone Sez that might lead to a change in U.S. government:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
This is a popular one, but it doesn't make it true.

"We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money." -- Davy Crockett, Congressman 1827-35
This would tend to eliminate most government spending, but should Davy Crockett's thoughts on government spending really carry that much weight today?

Anyway, this is just my take on a common "argument" today. If I were in charge I'd say, "Please, please keep debating issues, but put a little thought and original effort into your arguments. I planned to address straw men and ad hominem arguments, but I think I've bored you enough today.