Starfish Link:
https://elcamino.starfishsolutions.com/starfish-ops/
Unit on The Meaning of Ambition
Essay Two for 150 Points (Life of Image Vs. Life of Substance)
Option One: To an audience of college students, write a persuasive essay that addresses the contention that "Bartleby, the Scrivener, "Winter Dreams" or "The Other Woman" illustrates the moral principles in David Brooks' online essay "The Moral Bucket List" or Kristen Dombek's online essay "Emptiness."
"Bartleby, the Scrivener":
A crazed narrator who lives in hellish isolation writes about a man, Bartleby, a lowly office worker, who disobeys the narrator in a copy office. As we read the story, we begin to realize that the narrator has no life, no love, no human connections. He only lives for an image of success. But his ambition has brought him nothing. He is so empty and so needy that he writes this story in order to vindicate himself for the hellish life he has chosen. As we read the story, we begin to wonder if Bartleby even exists at all but is merely a phantom, a projection or alter ego of the insane narrator. With no connection to the core in his self and no connection to others, the narrator is in many ways a narcissist.
"Winter Dreams":
Dexter Green is obsessed with the life of image: of American success, trophies, status, oneupmanship. He projects his fantasies on Judy Jones, who becomes his chimera of the American Dream. But living for Judy Jones, a fantasy, a "Winter Dream," if you will, he never lives in the real world and in fact squanders his whole life on a tawdry illusion. Like the narrator in "Bartleby," Dexter Green is a narcissist, an empty soul whose only conviction is to rely on the adulation and approval of others.
"The Other Woman":
The narrator of this story is about to marry a judge's daughter, not for love but for elevated status, and just before marrying his fiance he has an affair, which he rationalizes with the astute potency of a full-fledged narcissist. All 3 characters from the stories are narcissists and victims of unbridled ambition. They have no moral core to counterbalance their vanity and desire for image. All 3 characters live for an imaginary life, not a real life. They are like the people Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher, described hundreds of years ago:
We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavour to shine. We labour unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. And if we possess calmness, or generosity, or truthfulness, we are eager to make it known, so as to attach these virtues to that imaginary existence. We would rather separate them from ourselves to join them to it; and we would willingly be cowards in order to acquire the reputation of being brave. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce the one for the other! For he would be infamous who would not die to preserve his honour.
To paraphrase the above:
We are so vain and narcissistic that too often we put more effort in creating an image than working on the substance of our soul. We don't care or know that we are lost and miserable as long as we have led others to believe that we are happy and good. When we feel incomplete as human beings, we buy a new car so that in enjoying the admiration of others we try to convince ourselves that we are now "complete" and happy. We date and even marry people we don't love because we think that others will admire us, the "power couple" who enjoy "Chanel No. 5 Moments" everywhere we go, where we are the center of attention. As we live for the Chanel No. 5 Moment, we become more and more empty inside, miserable zombies unaware of our decrepit and fraudulent condition.
All 3 characters fit the above description.
Suggested Structure
Paragraph 1: Summarize Brooks' or Dombek's essay. 150 words.
Paragraph 2. Frame the debate of your argumentative thesis by asking how and why the story addresses the major ideas in Brooks' or Dombek's essay. Then answer your question with a thesis. 150 words.
Paragraphs 3-6: Supporting paragraphs: They support your thesis' mapping components. 125 words each for 500
Paragraph 7: Write your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph. 150 words.
Paragraph 8: Conclusion: Restate your thesis with emotion (pathos) and show its broader ramifications. 100 words (total is 1,050 words).
If you wish, you can analyze these fallen characters through the following essays as well:
"Emptiness" by Kristen Dombek
"Love People, Not Pleasure," by Arthur C. Brooks
"Ambition Explosion" by David Brooks
You might also consult Pascal's famous Pensees:
We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavour to shine. We labour unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. And if we possess calmness, or generosity, or truthfulness, we are eager to make it known, so as to attach these virtues to that imaginary existence. We would rather separate them from ourselves to join them to it; and we would willingly be cowards in order to acquire the reputation of being brave. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce the one for the other! For he would be infamous who would not die to preserve his honour.
Option 2:
Develop a thesis that analyzes "Bartleby, the Scrivener, "Winter Dreams" or "The Other Woman" in terms of the Faustian Bargain described in the essay "Love People, Not Pleasure," by Arthur C. Brooks. Be sure your essay at least 3 sources. You could use a structure similar to one in Option 1. You can also use the documentary Minimalism (2016) as a source for Option #2.
Bear in mind, Option #2 is really the same as Option #1. It's just different wording. In both cases, the exchange of substance for a life of image is the Faustian Bargain.
Sources for Option 1 and 2:
You don't need any resources other than the ones I've provided, but you can use any other sources you see fit as long as you have 3 sources in your Works Cited page.
The Secret to Understanding "Bartleby":
The narrator is crazy, and the presence of Bartleby makes the narrator become even crazier, so that his story escalates into growing madness. The narrator's craziness is that he tries too hard to conform to American notions of success and loses perspective on his life, his health, love, relationships, and the nature of his soul.
Every thing the narrator says or suggests about himself is a conscious or unconscious lie so that the opposite is usually true:
"elderly man" suggests a wise authority but the narrator is neither wise or authoritative.
"profound conviction" suggests a man with convictions but in fact the narrator is tormented by doubt and ambiguity.
"view of the brick wall": There is no view. The brick wall is his prison of routine and solipsism.
Slate's Annotated "Bartleby, the Scrivener"
Part 1:“Bartleby, the Scrivener” encompasses many themes including the following:
- trying to buy one’s salvation and approval with money instead of making the difficult and necessary changes, which include confronting one's character weaknesses.
- Getting trapped in a rut and being too scared to get out of the rut because the hell we know feels "safer" than the hell we don't know.
- Working so much that we lose our connection to other people, and being so burned out at work we don't even have the time or energy to know that we're lonely and living in our own personal hell.
- Conforming to society’s script of success and happiness and as a result we betray our true self, become completely lost, yet try to convince ourselves and others that we have indeed found success and happiness to the point that we actually believe our own lie.
- Devoting one’s life to a Chanel No. 5 Moment, a life of image, while neglecting the soul, which decays slowly and slowly, sometimes to the Point of No Return. This devotion to image is not reserved for a small fraction of the human race; rather, it seems to be the rule, not the exception.
- The despair of not even knowing that one’s soul is in a state of depression. As Kierkegaard once said, “Despair is not knowing it.” Most people find distractions from their despair. Like the narrator, they keep busy and they talk a lot to make a clamor that will distract them from their life of emptiness, loneliness, and futility. Ironically, the release of one’s despair is accompanied by hope. This is why Bartleby gives the narrator hope on one hand because he represents the possibility of change, but terror on the other because change is the scariest thing life can offer.
- Sometimes in life our routine that is killing us is broken up by a red flag, a warning sign that we must change. How we respond to the red flag determines the direction of our character. We can move in a centripetal direction, more and more inward, meaning a more intense version of who we already are; or we can move in a centrifugal motion, outward and outward, undergoing a radical character transformation or character arc and in experiencing real change, we become more mature, wise, and loving.
- Curating our life to others and in doing so living a lie. The entire story exists on two layers: The self-aggrandizing exterior the narrator tries to present us and the implicit interior that evidences the narrator's hellish loneliness and craziness. In a way, he foreshadows all the social media addicts curating their "amazing" lives while inadvertently revealing how shallow and miserable they are.
Themes As They Unfold in the Story
Possibility of Change
One of the most painful themes in “Bartleby” is the possibility of change, how this possibility titillates and entices us, how this possibility awakens our longings for hope and love and connection, but how ultimately, for many of us this change is a threat to the status quo.
Rather than accept the invitation for change, we become defiant and bury the possibility for change deep into the Earth where we hope it will disappear forever. Resistance to change, and our fear of change, is one of the story’s deep themes.
Bartleby is like the Hipster Imp who has come to tell the narrator to stop living in conformity to The Man. He says, "I prefer not to," which can be translated into "I'm not playing your empty game. You're an uptight loser who obsesses over food. Why should I follow your footsteps?" Perhaps, then, Bartleby is the narrator's alter ego.
Egotism and Narcissism
Change requires humility: the confession that we’ve “soiled the bed” and made a ruin of our lives.
However, the story’s narrator remains proud and clings to the idea that he is a wise, prudent, and successful man. He cannot let go of his egotism and the idea that he is living a "safe," prudent, and highly esteemed existence; rather, he wants us to focus on the homeless imp Bartleby as a source of all his woes.
He is defiant and recalcitrant (stubborn).
We should keep in mind that the narrator is a lawyer. He uses language and rhetoric to defend himself, to seek vindication, and self-justification, and his belief that he is effective in mounting his self-defense is the bulwark of his very downfall. In other words, he is an expert in BS. As such, he is a victim of his own BS. BSers think they're "getting over," winning advantage over others, but in the end BSers become victims of their own BS. Their egotism and failure to see the big picture result in their demise.
Neediness
The narrator makes obsessive references to food, "morsels of approval," and we begin to see that food has become a metaphor of the narrator’s insatiable hunger for approval and vindication, as compensation for his deeply-rooted feelings of guilt, shame, and self-betrayal.
Another office worker with neediness on par with the narrator is Michael Scott from The Office. But whereas Scott eventually finds love and becomes more multi-dimensional as a human being, the story's narrator becomes more confined and isolated and is doomed to a loveless life. Clearly, the story is dark and more pessimistic than the darkly comic The Office.
An Eminently Safe Man
If by “safe” the narrator means he takes no risks in terms of deviating from his rigid routine and establishing relationships and the resulting intimacy, then, yes indeed, he is “safe.”
If by "safe" the narrator means he implements the same routine day after day without questioning or analyzing the effectiveness and healthiness of his routine because he is in "default" mode, then, yes indeed, he is "safe."
If by "safe" the narrator means conforming to society's most sick, superficial, toxic versions of materialistic success and class status, then, yes indeed, he is "safe."
If by "safe" the narrator means avoiding all relationships and sacrificing love for a life devoted to money and image, then, yes indeed, he is "safe."
If by "safe" the narrator means never taking vacations in order to beat the competition and never get behind in his paperwork, then, yes indeed, he is "safe."
But his safety or coping mechanism to cut himself off from spontaneity, from change, from people, and from the normal challenges of life becomes a form of maladaptation.
He is a prisoner of his own pathological definition of what it means to be safe. In fact, by safe we mean he’s a prisoner by his need to be “safe.” Therefore, he is not safe at all, but vulnerable to being chronically lonely and suffering the distorted perceptions that such isolated, lonely people have.
Perhaps least safe of all, the narrator spends too much time alone and lives in the hellish, dangerous state of solipsism, the condition of living totally inside one's head with no connection to corrective forces from outside reality.
His loneliness and condition of being cut off from life in his “safety prison” or bubble makes him live vicariously through others. Therefore, we see the narrator is fond of speaking admirably of big names that he keeps in his office like John Jacob Astor.
Our narrator lives too much in his head and is vulnerable to many delusions, including the idea that his being prudent or safe makes him admirable when in fact he is withering away in his office.
"I am an eminently safe man" is just BS that spews from the narrator's head. One of the most important lessons is that the narrator, a well-spoken and very literate man, an attorney no less, believes in his own BS.
In truth, the narrator should say, "I am an eminently empty man" and as such his only compensation is narcissism, the obnoxious performance of being superior to everyone else in order to quell his deeply-rooted self-doubts.
Later in the story when we see the little homunculus Bartleby chant the mantra, “I prefer not to,” we will be compelled to see that mantra a rebellion and a refusal to participate in the narrator’s BS, what amounts to a life that is built on lies.
In many ways it could be argued that Bartleby has come to hand the narrator his butt to him on a stick, and he has in fact, but the narrator is too insulated by his layers upon layers of façade to see the truth. Even with his butt handed to him on a stick, the narrator, an expert in his legalistic elocutions, denies that his soul is languishing in his self-imposed hell.
The narrator’s tragedy is that he has been lying to himself for so long he no longer knows he is lying. So for all his literacy and privilege, he is a failure.
He is a man who gained the world, ascending America’s financial and social rankings, but lost his soul. In this sense, the narrator is a casualty of the American Success Myth. This Myth is larded with narcissism but empty on soul.
In the third paragraph, we see him continue to bloviate about his success: how his “avocations had been largely increased.” He is getting more and more work and is poised to hire another person. If Bartleby is a figment of the narrator's crazed imagination, as many critics say, then the narrator is overworked; he is biting off more than he can chew, so to speak.
Additionally, he boasts that he is safe, prudent, and in control: “I seldom lose my temper, much more seldom indulge in dangerous indignation at wrongs and outrages.” He does not lose his temper, indeed, but on a deeper level he cannot even assert authority on his subordinates because he is a coward with no inner conviction.
Even as he boasts about his success, we see that he is a prisoner with windows with no view at all as they are blocked by large walls so that he is a prisoner inside a “huge square cistern.” Being a prisoner makes him feel safe, but in fact it is not safe to languish in hell.
Early in the story, the narrator describes himself as “an eminently safe man” to assure us that he does not rock the boat, does not take high risks, and does nothing reckless that would endanger himself or others. The word the narrator should use is not safe; the word he should use is cowardice or fear or pusillanimity.
But to the contrary, his entire life is unsafe, reckless, and wasteful. He has squandered his existence on the egotistical delights of impressing others with an image of monetary success and image to the point that the narrator is bereft of love, connection, and deep relationships. His only relationships are with his equally dysfunctional co-workers who, if not working for the narrator, would be unemployable and most likely homeless.
There is nothing “safe” about the narrator’s work environment. Without a view of anything but walls, the office is a prison, a crypt, a place to die. It is a room of recurring cycles of futility. It is a place where he lacks the wide view. He can only see the tree but not the forest. He lacks metacognition.
In many ways, “Bartleby” is a precursor to the NBC hit show The Office. People are trapped in their lost dreams and live in an imaginary world to stave off the despair of their office life.
To live a life of loneliness, cut off from one’s real self, and beholden to society’s definition of success while languishing in misery is anything but safe: It is an ulcer. It is stress-induced cancer. It is depression. It is addiction. It is suicide.
So let us stop this nonsense of calling the narrator “safe.”
“I Would Prefer Not To”
“I would prefer not to” is not bald defiance. It is more subtle resistance.
Bartleby seems to be offering passive resistance or passive noncompliance. Not only is Bartleby rejecting his boss’s orders specifically, but he is also rejecting society’s scripts, which encourage us to become mindless workers and consumers: docile, compliant sheep who conform to society’s blueprint for living, which in reality is a form of death.
He seems to be not only rejecting his boss’s order but also rejecting his boss’s entire existence, as if to say, “I would prefer not to turn out like you.” Thus Bartleby’s mantra can be seen as an existential admonishment against the narrator: “Your life is a bunch of phony BS, and I’m not following your path.”
Bartleby’s words are more damning because he remains calm, lucid, polite, and firm evidencing that he is not being capricious or impulsive. In contrast, his boss is overcome by anxiety by Bartleby’s noncompliance and Bartleby’s cool-headedness gives him the upper hand.
The dynamic between subordinate—the cool one—and boss—the anxiety-laden one—is not a dynamic that the narrator wishes to have because such a dynamic contradicts the narrator’s delusion that he is a cool-headed authority figure who has control over his office and his life. Bartleby is living evidence that the narrator’s life is a precariously stacked pack of cards made into a tower that will collapse any second.
The story speaks to the way most of us create these elaborate facades that blind us from the foolishness and wasted lives that define us.
The narrator’s response is one of great agitation. However, he is more curious than offended, so he is not ready to fire Bartleby just yet.
The narrator also feels helpless to do anything about it, but rationalizes that he “will forget the matter for the present, reserving it for my future leisure.”
A few days later, Bartleby issues the same refusal and the narrator is, by his own words, “turned into a pillar of salt.” This speaks to the narrator no longer being a living being but a dead man, a creature of petrification, a mummy with money.
The words, “I would prefer not to” also contrast Bartleby’s conviction with the narrator’s self-doubt and cowardice. He must rely on his other employees to tell Bartleby—and himself—that Bartleby’s noncompliance is unacceptable and crazy because in part the narrator lacks the core conviction to make his reprimand on his own.
Narrator Sees Bartleby at Work on a Sunday
“Now, one Sunday morning I happened to go to Trinity Church, to hear a celebrated preacher . . .” and he thought he’d just stop by the office.
Under the guise of piety, the narrator betrays himself: He appears to live at the office, and many literary critics argue that Bartleby is a mirror reflection of the narrator.
The unattended self, unseen, rots and festers. The narrator must behold his real and abandoned self, and he can only process such agony by making himself believe Bartleby is another person, or by projecting his own rotted self onto another person.
We read, “Quite surprised, I called out, when to my consternation a key was turned from within, and thrusting his lean visage at me, and holding the door ajar, the apparition of Bartleby appeared, in his shirt sleeves, and otherwise in a strangely tattered dishabille, saying quietly that he was sorry, but he was deeply engaged just then, and—preferred not admitting me at present.”
Later we read that Bartleby is only in his undergarments and appears to be homeless as he has nowhere else to go.
I had a student, a genius math major from China, who told me she spent Christmas day alone in her door room doing math homework because doing math problems was all she knew how to do, ever since she was a little child.
Developing a myopic or tunnel-vision toward one’s work is a form of insanity and self-imposed slavery, and for the first time the narrator catches a glimpse of what has become of him.
For the first time, the narrator feels a kinship with Bartleby: “For the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me. Before, I had never experienced aught but a not unpleasing sadness. The bond of a common humanity now drew me irresistibly to gloom. A fraternal melancholy! For both I and Bartleby were sons of Adam.”
Moreover, the narrator is convinced that “the scrivener was the victim of an innate and incurable disorder.”
Indeed, the narrator has uncovered a disease: his own.
What evidence is there that Bartleby is in fact the narrator’s alter ego or mirror image? (The homunculus within)
“I prefer not to,” is the narrator rebelling against his lifeless, routine existence. In other words, “I can’t do this crap anymore.”
The narrator’s shock is called Heimlich or the uncanny, a person who shows up is both strange but familiar.
The narrator begins to scrutinize Bartleby’s anti-social lifestyle, which is really his own: never going out for dinner, never going out at all.
He's going to church and he decides to visit Bartleby but has a vision of himself. “Both Bartleby and I were sons of Adam.” Yes, they’re brothers, the same person in fact.
By wanting to keep Bartleby employed and by wanting to help him, he really wants to heal himself.
He starts talking like Bartleby.
“Will you, or will you not, quite me?” Bartleby must stay to show the narrator the truth about himself.
“I tore myself from him whom I had so longed to be rid of.”
The narrator’s career suggestions reflect his will to expand his own horizons.
The real condition of the narrator, dead, or not even born yet, feet curled up in the fetal position.
Sample Thesis Statements
Sample #1
While the narrator in “Bartleby” lacks the mean-spirited vindictiveness of the classic narcissist, he does conform to narcissism’s other characteristics cogently analyzed in Kristin Dombek’s essay “Emptiness.” The narrator’s narcissism becomes evident in light of Dombek’s keen definition when we see that behind all his frenetic verbalizing and posturing is a man consumed by the emptiness of his own soul, which results in an insatiable appetite. He is a man whose life is devoted to the façade of “selfiness,” what Dombek describes as the “simulacrum of the superpowered self.” And finally, he is man who can only associate himself with those who help bolster his life stage as a performance of artist for The American Dream of Success, which is why he is so threatened by the appearance of Bartleby.
Sample #2
While on the surface the narrator in “Bartleby” appears to conform in many ways to Kristen Dombek’s pithy essay “Emptiness” and while he does indeed show a certain narcissism in some of his self-aggrandizing actions, he lacks something fundamental to narcissists: guilt. The story bleeds with the narrator’s guilt and shame throughout, and these emotions are antithetical to narcissism. Whereas the narcissist is single-minded in his pursuit of grandiose “selfiness,” the narrator is a divided soul who is torn by his personal comfort and his Christian obligation to help the Homeless Imp resulting in his unbearable guilt. Whereas the narcissist is single-minded in his pursuit of the perfect stage to conduct his performance, the myopic narrator compromises his stage by living in a condition of squalor that contradicts his grandiose description of his workplace, which speaks to the shame he experiences for a life of self-betrayal. And finally, while the narcissist is single-minded in his association with only those who, as Dombek observes, help the narcissist maintain his illusion of “selfiness,” the narrator co-exists with a bunch of ragtag idiots as his underlings who compromise his “simulacrum of the superpowered self.” This work arrangement speaks to the narrator’s cowardice and general dysfunction, which surely afflict him with shame and self-loathing. To conclude, the narrator is too much of a guilt-ridden coward to be the smarmy sociopathic narcissist described in Dombek’s masterful essay.
Thesis Sample #3:
I will concede that the narrator in “Bartleby” has almost too much of a soul to be a classic narcissist. I will further concede that the narrator is soaked with guilt, shame, and self-loathing, characteristics we don’t associate with the classic sociopathic narcissist. But let us not take our eye off the ball: The narrator is in many ways a virulent narcissist and he embodies many of the grotesque qualities discussed in Kristin Dombek’s lively essay “Emptiness.” He is clearly more interested in promoting the appearance of being charitable toward Bartleby rather than being genuinely charitable. He is clearly more interested in promoting the appearance of being prudent, self-possessed, and wise than in actually having those qualities. He is clearly more interested in curating his entire life as one of success, on other people’s terms, than finding success on his own terms. And finally, like all narcissists, the narrator is clearly driven by an unrelenting appetite for other people’s approval, which belies his own chronic emptiness.
Sample #4
If you feel you're slogging through McMahon's insufferable English 1C class, you're not alone. Many of us are growing impatient with McMahon's biased, unfair treatment of the poor narrator from "Bartleby, the Scrivener." McMahon is painting the narrator as a virulent narcissist, a cruel soul who does not exact true compassion on the homeless Imp, but in fact McMahon is guiding us down a dark, intractable rabbit hole. A close look at the story shows that the narrator's treatment of Bartleby does not evidence a narcissist at all but rather a kind, patient, long-suffering gentleman. Over and over, Bartleby defies the narrator and violates the narrator's clearly stated office policies, but over and over the narrator turns the other cheek and goes out of his way to lend a helping hand to the bereft homunculus. Clearly, the narrator is a gentle, kind soul who has done everything that is reasonable to employ Bartleby and to help this troubled, disaffected youth. Trying to label the narrator, who sacrifices his health and sanity for the defiant employee, a narcissist shows how deeply misguided McMahon is. Clearly, McMahon is trying to impose his own personal agenda and is showing that for the teaching the rigors of advanced literature he is clearly out of his league. I suggest McMahon stick to teaching remedial grammar, punctuation, and MLA research methods. Sorry, McMahon, but your narcissistic essay angle stinks to high heaven. If you wish me to discuss this further with you, I'll meet you at HomeTown Buffet.
End of Part 1
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is every day foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
