When I was first elected to Noosa Council, I expected debates would involve the presentation of rational arguments supported by research, evidence and facts.
I was soon to be disillusioned. Rational discourse was rarely persuasive in the face of pre-established positions, personal opinions or the desire to win at any cost. It turned out that some councillors were bent on using a range of debating tricks. To the best of my knowledge, I never enjoined in this. I found it unhelpful to good decision-making and, frankly, a waste of time.
At first these games puzzled me and later they angered me. A little research revealed that there is a technical term for many of these techniques – ‘debating fallacies’ – defined as “errors in reasoning to undermine the logic of an argument often lacking evidence to support their claims”.
Too often in debate, fallacies, misrepresentations and tricks are used to ‘win’ a point or argument. Perhaps some regard them as clever, but I consider them underhanded and even unethical. That said, they are not unlawful and are commonly used. The big problem for the community is that, if not called out, these tactics can result in very flawed decisions.
Here are a few I became familiar with at Noosa Council, even though I did not use them myself.
The straw man
A ‘straw man’ is a form of argument which gives the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument but in fact argues against a proposition that has not been advanced. This can take the form of inventing an extreme position and then arguing it is irrational.
This technique, frequently adopted in Noosa Council, was at its most blatant when, during debates about the new Noosa Plan, the threat of high rise development was evoked. The argument put was that any slight diversion would result in a developers’ picnic.
Appeal to authority & the role of dissent
In an appeal to authority, it is argued that something is true because an expert said it. Often the reference to authority is made out of context.
In Noosa Council debates, examples included:
– councillors themselves claiming to be authorities in certain fields (e.g. town planning, architecture and design, sport, Indigenous affairs, community consultation processes)
– referring to council staff as experts whose opinions must never be questioned
– fictitious authorities – “I talked to a legal eagle mate the other day, and he told me … .”
This was even extended to appropriating ‘democracy’ as a rhetorical tool. It was claimed, for example, that I was being ‘undemocratic’ when I questioned whether council should defend against an appeal of a council refusal of a development.
The assumption seemed to be that in a democracy once a majority votes one way, all councillors had to support the outcome. Of course that is not democratic, it is totalitarian.
In a democracy, councillors are entitled to a voice, regardless of whether or not others agree. On a number of occasions, my voice was silenced by the majority and I was not allowed to speak.
Democracy is about councillors being elected to have a voice on behalf of the community. This voice must not be diminished just because a majority think otherwise. Dissent is a powerful part of democracy.
“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion,” said former US president Dwight Eisenhower.
In law, the Local Government Act and Councillor Code of Conduct require only that councillors acknowledge the council’s decision when making opposing statements.
Appeal to ‘the people’
A similar fallacy is ad populum (‘appeal to the people’), an argument which concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.
In Noosa Council debates, a councillor may claim to have been in touch with many people in the community (always unnamed) who have voiced support for their position. There is rarely evidence to support this assertion.
It is important in such debates that councillors do bring forward vox populi (the people’s voice) based on honest and impartial assessment and not purport that their own opinion is that voice. At base, making such representations is a matter of personal integrity.
Anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence is related to ad populum in that it is collected in a casual or informal way and relies heavily or entirely on personal testimony. Anecdotes are frequently the enemy of evidence.
Something is anecdotal if only one or very few residents relate a particular story. Unless this is confirmed by broader evidence, it should not be generalised as if it were a community-wide issue. Unfortunately a vivid example may be compelling to other councillors, even though it is not well-founded as a general truth.
Cherry picking
This is a deliberate presentation of incomplete data. For example, selecting cases or evidence that supports a particular position while ignoring contradictory information.
Generalisation
Generalising is the fallacy of leaping to a broad conclusion from a small sample.
During my term on council much was made of a single street said to have problems with Airbnb. From this unnamed street emerged plentiful assertions that this was the way things could end up being throughout the shire and that short stay letting should be stopped or residents would be severely discommoded.
This generalisation was a form of fear mongering or hyperbole – presenting an argument as an exaggerated worst case scenario.
Ad hominem behaviour
This recourse to personal attack is colloquially known as ‘playing the man and not the ball’. An opponent’s argument is ignored and used as a trigger for a personal assault on character, experience, credentials or motives.
Similarly, calling someone a hypocrite aims to discredit another party by asserting they have failed to act consistently with their previous position or statements. When I questioned the chairperson of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation on a number of issues, another councillor called my questioning hypocritical. To this day, I do not know on what basis.
On Noosa Council ad hominem behaviour was also deployed in a more subtle way by diminishing a new councillor as a ‘newbie’ (suggesting a lack of knowledge and credibility in debate). Another favoured ploy, directed at me with fervour, was to seek leverage by calling me out for coming from Sydney (all but one of the other councillors had come from other Australian cities, but I was the most recently arrived).
Ridiculing the argument
Similar to an ad hominem attack but lacking its direct personal emphasis is ‘pooh-poohing’: disregarding the merits or substance of an argument and dismissing it as unworthy of serious consideration. This may also involve quoting another’s words out of context, misrepresenting their position, oversimplifying their argument or trivialising what they have said.
Thin edge of the wedge
The thin edge of the wedge is a term suggesting that a relatively small decision will inevitably lead to a chain of escalating events culminating in some negative impact. The suggestion is that supporting a recommendation should be avoided because it will inevitably have regrettable consequences.
In Noosa Council this ‘thin edge of the wedge’ term frequently takes the form of a decision or action being characterised pejoratively as an undesirable ‘precedent’, when in most cases it is merely an action that may or may not be repeated at some time in the future. Courts determine precedents; councils do not.
Finally
These and other debating tactics – such as red herrings, false analogies and filibusters (lengthy monologues to bamboozle fellow councillors) can be used to replace valid, rational and respectful argument. They often lead to poor decision-making.
After four years’ experience, I am very familiar with all these debating fallacies and tricks. I see them in use at all levels of government. I am no longer taken in and I’m never impressed.
