Location
Room 1
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
Argumentative harm, fallacy of relative privation, tu quoque, whataboutism
Start Date
6-6-2020 2:00 PM
End Date
6-6-2020 3:00 PM
Abstract
Whataboutisms have received scant attention in argumentation theory, yet they are common persuasive moves in debates about social and political issues and can occur in the form of arguments. This paper analyses these arguments, showing that while whataboutisms tend to make for bad arguments, there can be instances of good argument employing a whataboutist move. The final section of the paper considers arguments employing whataboutsims as instances of argumentative harm.
Previous Versions
Reader's Reactions
Mark Battersby, A Commentary on Tracy Bowell’s “Whataboutisms, Arguments and Argumentative Harm” (June 2020)
Included in
Whataboutisms, Arguments and Argumentative Harm
Room 1
Whataboutisms have received scant attention in argumentation theory, yet they are common persuasive moves in debates about social and political issues and can occur in the form of arguments. This paper analyses these arguments, showing that while whataboutisms tend to make for bad arguments, there can be instances of good argument employing a whataboutist move. The final section of the paper considers arguments employing whataboutsims as instances of argumentative harm.
