Critical Thinking For All: Bullshit Debating Tactics

At Issue: Bluster. Confabulation. In-your-face aggression. Bullying. People will use every tool in their distorted toolbox to win an argument, often resorting to manipulative tactics instead of sound reasoning. It’s time to stand up to it. Recognize when someone is using these tactics to sway you to their side, and arm yourself with the tools to push back.

In our previous article, Critical Thinking For All: The Fallacies, we explored common logical fallacies. Now, we shift focus to identifying and calling out abusive and illogical debating tactics. Let’s curb these behaviors and return to addressing the actual issues at hand.

1. Small Fires*

Relaxed parlance: “The Flood the Zone Tactic.”

What it is: Overwhelming an argument by scattering multiple minor or unrelated criticisms, making it impossible to address everything. This tactic creates the illusion of a weak position by sheer volume, even if none of the criticisms hold up individually.

Tell: When the argument shifts focus repeatedly, introducing small issues that divert attention from the main point.

Example:
Position: “Bike lanes reduce pollution and improve safety.”
Counter-Argument: “Sure, but what about the cost of repainting streets, the inconvenience to drivers, and the fact that cyclists don’t even use them consistently?”
Flaw: Instead of engaging with the central argument (pollution and safety), the opponent floods the discussion with minor points to derail the focus.

2. Motte & Bailey

Relaxed parlance: “The Start Off Nice and Then Go Mean Tactic.”

What it is: Starting with a defensible, agreeable position (the “Motte”) and then subtly shifting to a more controversial or extreme claim (the “Bailey”). When challenged, the arguer retreats back to the Motte, pretending they were only defending the agreeable position all along.

Tell: When someone backs away from their initial bold claim to a more defensible one when under scrutiny.

Example:
Bailey: “Cyclists are entitled to take up as much road space as they want, even if it blocks traffic.”
Motte: “Well, I’m just saying cyclists deserve to feel safe on the road.”
Flaw: The arguer conflates a reasonable demand (safety) with a much more aggressive stance (unrestricted road use), retreating to the safer position when criticized.

3. Gaslighting

Relaxed parlance: “The You’re-Crazy Tactic.”

What it is: Dismissing or invalidating someone’s perception or memory of an event to make them doubt their reality.

Tell: When the arguer insists, “That’s not what I said,” or denies clear facts, even when they’re demonstrably wrong.

Example:
Position: “You just ran a red light and almost hit me in the bike lane.”
Counter-Argument: “That never happened. You’re imagining it. You cyclists always exaggerate things like this.”
Flaw: Instead of addressing the claim, the arguer manipulates the cyclist into questioning their perception, derailing the conversation entirely.

4. Whataboutism

Relaxed parlance: “The Yeah-But Tactic.”

What it is: Deflecting criticism by bringing up an unrelated issue, often implying hypocrisy.

Tell: When the rebuttal starts with “Yeah, but what about…?”

Example:
Position: “Drivers need to be more careful near bike lanes to avoid accidents.”
Counter-Argument: “Yeah, but cyclists break traffic laws all the time!”
Flaw: The argument shifts away from driver behavior, leaving the original concern unaddressed.

5. Sealioning

Relaxed parlance: “The Persistent Pesterer Tactic.”

What it is: Feigning polite curiosity while repeatedly demanding evidence, often with the intent to exhaust the other person.

Tell: Excessive demands for “proof” even when the argument is self-evident or already supported by credible sources.

Example:
Position: “Bike lanes reduce accidents.”
Counter-Argument: “Can you show me a study proving that? And another one? And another one?”
Flaw: The person isn’t genuinely interested in the evidence—they’re trying to wear you out or make the discussion seem endless.

6. Moving the Goalposts

Relaxed parlance: “The Never-Satisfied Tactic.”

What it is: Changing the criteria for proving a point, making it impossible to win the argument.

Tell: When the other person continually shifts what counts as “acceptable” evidence.

Example:
Position: “Dedicated bike lanes have reduced accidents by 30% in this city.”
Counter-Argument: “Well, that’s only one city. Show me results from five cities.”
Flaw: The original argument is dismissed by arbitrarily changing the scope of evidence needed to prove it.

7. Tone Policing

Relaxed parlance: “The Calm Down Tactic.”

What it is: Criticizing the tone or emotional delivery of an argument instead of engaging with its substance.

Tell: “I’d listen to you if you weren’t so aggressive.”

Example:
Position: “Drivers keep swerving into the bike lane—it’s dangerous!”
Counter-Argument: “You’d get more support if you weren’t so emotional about it.”
Flaw: The focus shifts to the cyclist’s tone, ignoring the real issue of dangerous driving.

8. Bait-and-Switch

Relaxed parlance: “The Sneaky Swap Tactic.”

What it is: Substituting one argument for another after gaining initial agreement, often leading to an unrelated or extreme conclusion.

Tell: “Since we all agree on this, we must also agree on that.”

Example:
Position: “We should encourage more people to ride bikes for environmental reasons.”
Counter-Argument: “Exactly. That’s why we should ban cars altogether.”
Flaw: The discussion moves from a reasonable proposal (encouraging bike use) to an extreme conclusion (banning cars) without proper justification.

9. Gish Gallop*

Relaxed parlance: “The Machine Gun Tactic.”

What it is: Overwhelming an opponent with a rapid series of weak arguments or questionable claims, making it difficult to respond to each one.

Tell: A flurry of points, often tangential, with no room for proper rebuttal.

Example:
Position: “Bike lanes are a good idea to improve safety and reduce pollution.”
Counter-Argument: “Bike lanes cost too much, they make traffic worse, cyclists don’t even use them, and what about winter when no one bikes?”
Flaw: The volume of claims makes it hard to address the substance of the debate, even if each point is flawed.

10. Appeal to Hypocrisy (Tu Quoque)

Relaxed parlance: “The You-Do-It-Too Tactic.”

What it is: Deflecting criticism by accusing the other party of similar behavior, rather than addressing the issue.

Tell: “You’re just as bad!”

Example:
Position: “Cyclists need better infrastructure to stay safe.”
Counter-Argument: “Well, cyclists don’t respect drivers, so why should drivers respect them?”
Flaw: Instead of discussing the need for better infrastructure, the focus shifts to accusing cyclists of unrelated faults.

* Note: Small Fires and Gish Gallop are slightly different. Gish Gallop tries to bowl over the opposing side whereas Small Fires, as in the name, is started at various points thoughout the debate. Small Fires aims to misdirect where Gish Gallop intends to overwhelm.