• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Slippery Slope arguement

Is the slippery slope argument a valid debate tactic?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • No

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • Total voters
    19
W

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,427
Reaction score
9,578
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not to be confused with, and arguement with Slippery Slope, do you feel that the slippery slope argument is a valid one?

Objectively speaking, almost everybody uses it here. Or I should say that amongst the various factions, each side uses it. I am sure, that in sometime in my 10,000+ posts, I have used it as well. I'll give examples...

A popular slippery slope argument amongst the right, would be that gay marriage will lead to the legalization of beastiality, or other such strange arrangements. Or that the legalization of marijuana will lead to the legalization of all drugs.

A popular slippery slope argument by the left here, is that if we engage in waterboarding, we are no better than the terrorists who hack the heads off their prisoners. Or another would be that we should continue to work to restrict peoples access to guns, because of the inherent danger they pose to society.

And for libertarians, pretty much anything the federal government does, is subject to the slippery slope argument as the government wrests freedom from the hands of states and individuals and we will soon be living in the Orwellian society.

So, in your opinion, is the slippery slope argument, a valid debate tactic?

My opinion is that it actually is. Thats not to say that I agree with all the above slippery slope examples I put forth, but it does seem to be a valid debate tactic, because it is routinely used by all. Whether or not it comes to fruition in these cases, is not the point I am trying to make here. The fact that it sometimes does come to fruition, means that there is some validation of the tactic, even if the tactic is sometimes applied improperly.
 

If you can prove that what you propose will happen is nesesseraly a logical consiquence of an action or trend, then yes it is valid.

The main obstical in proving a slippery slope is to leave virtualy nothing up to interpritation or opinion; people will simply disagree and reject your entire well thought out argument.
 
I hate slippery slope arguments with a passion. If some ones best argument is a slippery slope argument, they have pretty much already lost the debate.
 
Redress said:
I hate slippery slope arguments with a passion. If some ones best argument is a slippery slope argument, they have pretty much already lost the debate.
Click to expand...

typical liberal response. let's pretend our actions don't have ramifications, that precedents don't matter, blah blah blah.
 
I think it can be a valid debate TACTIC, it is not the end all be all and is not something that should ever be accepted as THE reason for agreeing with something.

Its also one that I roll my eyes at the most (even to myself sometimes reading back) because everyone uses it for something, everyone asserts its importance when THEY use it, but then everyone tries to downplay it as illogical or over reacting when its used against them.

The slippery slope type arguments are something that should come up, consideration taken, and protections possibly thought up to keep it from happening, but I almost never think the slippery slope argument should be THE reason or even one of the MAIN reasons for not doing something because 9 out of 10 times it relies on a great deal of assumption and speculation and not actual legitimate fact. It helps when the slippery slope your pointing at has a number of things already happening in relatively short term.

The Slippery Slope argument is a wonderful addition to a debate argument, its the potatoes to your meat. Without the meat, its hardly something you'd really consider a true meal.
 
Last edited:
emdash said:
typical liberal response. let's pretend our actions don't have ramifications, that precedents don't matter, blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

So as a conservative then I'm sure you're not against the Patriot Act, which the slippery slope argument could be made that TITLE III of the OMNIBUS Safe Street Acts led to FISA which led to the PATRIOT Act and so precedent shows that within 20 years the government will be controlling us through implants ni the brain?

Or that we shouldn't remove gun regulations because if you remove gun regulations you will end up removing all gun laws and then you will have a lawless place like the mexican border so naturally removing gun laws is unsafe.

I mean, since apparently only liberals think that the slippery slope doesn't exist and conservatives must think its is definitly true, you believe those things right?
 

truly you have a dizzying intellect.
 
emdash said:
typical liberal response. let's pretend our actions don't have ramifications, that precedents don't matter, blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

Where did that come from? Of course actions have ramifications, but argue against direct ramifications, not some imagined scenario that could result. There will be time enough to argue against that imagined scenario if it should come to pass.
 
I don't know that the potential danger must be an inevitable outcome of the action or trend; I would argue that the degree to which the potential danger is made more probable is the degree to which the slippery slope argument has merit.

Following on the OP's example of a possible slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of bestiality: absent credible evidence supporting higher incidence of bestality among homosexuals than heterosexuals, this argument fails, because the potential danger cannot be shown to be more probable.

An example of where a slippery slope argument would be valid, however, could be that the government's interventions in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a next step on a path towards direct state control of entire industries within this country: Because law relies heavily on past precedent, every accepted intervention can be used as a precedent justifying the next intervention. This argument does not require that the danger be an inevitable outcome--because there is no absolute assurance the next intervention will happen until it does--merely that the danger is made more likely.

I view the effect of a slippery slope as a gradual narrowing of the range of outcomes towards one that is undesirable. Where that narrowing can be sustained by evidence and reason, the slippery slope is a valid argument. Absent that sustenance, the slippery slope is an invalid argument.
 
Redress said:
Where did that come from? Of course actions have ramifications, but argue against direct ramifications, not some imagined scenario that could result. There will be time enough to argue against that imagined scenario if it should come to pass.
Click to expand...

I believe such shortsightedness to be unwise and responsible for most of our current problems, that's all I'm saying. sorry for the partisan remark, I am pretty immature today. :doh this is the only warning you'll get!
 
Redress said:
I hate slippery slope arguments with a passion. If some ones best argument is a slippery slope argument, they have pretty much already lost the debate.
Click to expand...

This a preposterous and narrow-minded statement. No debate tactic is categorically worthless as all arguments are necessarily validated by the logic used to support them.

The "slippery slope" argument boils down to, "if x happens then y is likely to happen." It's a cause and effect argument, and to suggest that a cause and effect argument will basically lose a debate is nonsensical in the extreme.
 

There are few occasions that the y has to happen. It is possible to separate the possibly good x from the bad y.

There are occasions that a slippery slope argument is valid, but they are exceedingly rare to the point that for practical purposes, it is pretty safe to discount them. We do always need to check our assumptions though, and identify why a slippery slope argument is faulty, but you can be pretty sure it will be.
 
There are certainly times when its necessary to proceed cautiously, such as with stem cell research, but I don't think thats a justification to outright ban it.

Most of the time, the slippery slope argument isn't meant to advise caution, but is meant to scare people into thinking that something totally unrelated will happen. Such as when people claim the same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality or polygamy.

Its not a real argument, its just an excuse.
 
I say no, with some rare exceptions. If they say it is a slippery slope and give examples of a similar or exact policy that produced a slippery slope result then I would say that is a well founded argument. But just saying, "I don't like policy 'A' because it is a slippery slope to all kinds of unforeseen unintended consequences" That is a BS argument unless they actually back it up with real world examples.
 
Redress said:
There are few occasions that the y has to happen. It is possible to separate the possibly good x from the bad y.
Click to expand...

I didn't say, "if x happens then y has to happen", I said, "if x happens then y is likely to happen". It is an argument of cause and effect, nothing more.

There are occasions that a slippery slope argument is valid, but they are exceedingly rare to the point that for practical purposes, it is pretty safe to discount them.
Click to expand...

You are making the same mistake as you did earlier. There is no such thing as a better or worse debate tactic. All debate tactics are necessarily validated by their logic. The idea that a slippery slope argument can only be used to good effect in exceedingly rare cases is nothing more than a biased presumption with no basis in fact.

We do always need to check our assumptions though, and identify why a slippery slope argument is faulty, but you can be pretty sure it will be.
Click to expand...

Explain why we can be "pretty sure" of this. What makes the slippery slope argument - which is nothing more than an argument of cause and effect - so obviously flawed?
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
A popular slippery slope argument by the left here, is that if we engage in waterboarding, we are no better than the terrorists who hack the heads off their prisoners.
Click to expand...

Not a "slippery slope" argument, a moral-equivalency argument.

A slippery slope argument from the left along those lines is that "first waterboarding, then we'll start trimming their beards, and then we'll put ladies underwear on their heads, and then we'll ask them questions! Oh my!"

Some slippery slope arguments are valid.

First comes gun licenses.
Then comes gun registration.
Then comes gun confiscation.

That's a matter of historical fact.


Bill and Monica in a tree,

ESS YOU SEE KAY EYE ENN GEE

First comes marriage,

then comes bill with a baby carriage!
 
Redress said:
Where did that come from? Of course actions have ramifications, but argue against direct ramifications, not some imagined scenario that could result. There will be time enough to argue against that imagined scenario if it should come to pass.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Establishing potential worst-case scenarios is a valid engineering design tool.

It's also prudent family and national planning.
 
Ethereal said:
I didn't say, "if x happens then y has to happen", I said, "if x happens then y is likely to happen". It is an argument of cause and effect, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I think this is where we are reaching a disconnect. To me, as long as Y is separable from X, ie, if it does not need to happen, then it is two separate arguments. As long as it is possible to pull up short of reaching Y, then it is a separate argument.
 
I've long found this "slippery-slope is a logical-fallacy" to be itself false in many cases.

When a judge rules on the application of a law in a certain case, it becomes precedent, that is cited later on by other judges in how they interpret the law. These precedents can and are used to justify expansions of the interpretation of the law, as if they were law rather than just some judge's opinion of the law.

In a very similar sense, when X is done is can, in many cases, establish a precedent, such as the precedent that the government has a legal right to stick it's nose into not only X, but things related to X or similar to X. This happens in the real world all the time.

Or we change a long-standing traditional institution to include something it never included before, for the sake of a small special-intrest group. We have now established the precedent of changing a traditional institution for the sake of one small special intrest...so what is to prevent ten-dozen OTHER small special intrest groups from suing to get THEIR piece of the pie, based on that previous precedent?

For other arguments on the subject, see my sig line. :mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
...so what is to prevent ten-dozen OTHER small special intrest groups from suing to get THEIR piece of the pie, based on that previous precedent?
Click to expand...

The very obvious fallacy with that particular slippery slope construction is that the context is left out.

By context I mean the vast changes in the overall culture regarding the issue of homosexuality. This is not irrelevant.

In order to make the argument that polygamist marriage would follow from gay marriage, then I'd say you'd need to demonstrate that polygamists had made significant cultural inroads and gained social support over the years in the same way gays have. You could apply that same standard to any other special interest group regarding marriage. If you assert that there's a risk of opening the door to incestuous marriage or marriage between a man and his goat... then I'd ask you to show me the advocacy groups and political lobbies for these minorities and examine their political weight.

 
Goshin said:
I've long found this "slippery-slope is a logical-fallacy" to be itself false in many cases.
Click to expand...

I don't think the fallacy is simply in the use of it, but in the belief that somehow the slippery slope itself if reason enough for an argument or view to be dismissed.
 


Their piece of which "pie"?

Should not the issue therefore be a discussion of the pie, and not the people demanding slices?
 
The Slippery Slope fallacy is not a valid debate tactic. The Slippery Slope fallacy tries to connect to unrelated events in a cause-effect relationship. A perfect example is in the first post with the legalization of same-sex marriage being connected to legalization of bestiality without any clear cause-effect relationship being shown.

The problem people seem to be having here is they think all cause effect relationships are slippery slopes. If research shows that putting the driving age at 16 reduces the chances of an accident compared to lower ages then it would not be a slippery slope argument to say that lowering the driving age would result in more driving accidents.
 
I would argue that giving the government invasive power to "fight foreign evildoers" is a slippery slope, because I can cite countless historical examples of how that power was turned on the citizens it was trying to protect.

What I am actually arguing is that government powers are often used in manner that wasn't intended by public, and such power often leads to corruption. The slippery slope argument is simply a sloppy way of glossing over WHY A will cause B.

Slippery Slopes are worthless unless can you present a solid case for how one action will cause another. Claiming that gay marriage will let people marry animals is without merit, as nobody has legalized such practices even in places where gay marriage is allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…