Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving

From NewgonWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
"The arguments you are making stink of the well revised plotting of a self - interested pervert. You are in fact just trying to excuse your actions/proclivities, and your argument is inescapably bound up with this bias."

If the group concerend continues to face this current of prejudice promoted by the likes of yourself, then anyone arguing my point of view would have little hope of changing a thing. Would I really be here, talking to a brick wall, if all I wanted was to "fuck babies" etc.

But still, why not simply assume that I am either pedophilic or have a preconceived agenda? For this would not detract from the need to deconstruct my arguments, or render them any less logical. In reality, the issue here is your time wasting and diverting from the argument at hand. Since I have presented you with actual arguments, you must dismiss them with logical counterarguments, not speculative ad-hominem attacks and motive-reading - which are cognitive distortions and signs of weakness. The argument is there for you to see, the author is not.

Let's see how your argument would work out if the topic were something different. For example, would we want to undermine the campaigning of the ethnic or gay civil rights movement, because their arguments were in their own interests? Of course not, although it isn't surprising that it happened in the past, and still continues to. You should realise that but for preconceived notions of "wrongness" and "motive" against hated minorities, experience is valued in most fields of insight. You should ask yourself whether we should also reject party members from a vote on the party leadership, or NRA members from a referendum on gun control. Inversely, are we now going to ask a eunuch for sex advice?

Rogue source

"The source you provided has no value, just like anything else re-published by Ipce. Their site appears to be a pro-pedo free for all"

This argument is based on a guilt by association fallacy. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you do not like the website or source at which they are located.

Many sources of knowledge are only available because the most outlandish, bizarre and ostracised of individuals and organisations are willing to reproduce and publish them under their own roof.

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered

See also

For a similar argument, see: