I enjoy debating politics on Facebook. I’m sure this is just awful for most people, but to me, it’s fun. I have no formal training in debate, and I often find myself off debating a different topic than the one which I first made a statement. I call this debate creep. I’m consistently working on a definition of it, but, for now, here is what I have. Debate creep is the constant, incremental shift away from the original debate topic.
An example of debate creep is when you start out arguing whether White Snake or Winger is the greatest band with a W name in the history of music but ended up arguing over whether there’s a difference between white and vanilla cupcakes. The end state of the debate has no relation to and no bearing on the start of the debate. But there will be an easy to follow trail that leads from one to the next.
It often comes about because when debating topic (a), statement (b) comes up, and in response to (b), someone introduces (c), which then draws out (d). Statement (d) is easily dismissed with (e), and (e) is countered with (f). But (e) & (f) do not really support or contradict (a). As each new branch of the debate only slightly applies to the statement preceded by it, the final statements have no bearing on the original statements.
For example, take the statement: (a) During the campaign, Donald Trump lied about playing golf; he knew he would play golf as president. From this statement, there are a number of easy and relevant counterarguments. But to illustrate debate creep, we will ignore the ones that directly deal with those statements. For the debate creep example, a counter statement could be: (b) Well, Obama lied about keeping your own doctor; so, it shouldn’t be a surprise Trump lied because politicians lie1. Then, (c) Obama thought you could keep your own doctor, but Trump knew he would play golf because he always plays golf. (d) Obama knew, and Obama played golf; so, isn’t it okay if president’s play golf on their free time? (e) Of course, they should play golf on their free time if they don’t promise to not play golf. (f) But it’s the president’s free time, he should be able to do what he wants during his free time.
During that example, the point of statement (a) is that Trump lied, but following the chain, at the end, the debate is about whether a president should play golf, statement (f). This clumsy example shows how a debate moves from one topic – lying – to an unrelated topic – a president’s free time. I see this a lot on Facebook.
It’s related to and facilitated by the “Beside the Point” or “Red Herring” fallacy, but it’s not quite that either. Debate creep is engaging in and debating the “Red Herring” fallacy. It requires active participation in the attempted derailment of the argument. I often find myself engaging in debate creep, and while enjoyable, it takes me away from the point I was trying to make. As I said, I have no formal training in debates; so, I’m susceptible to subtle and strategic uses of fallacies to derail me. I think I get tripped up in it because I don’t have a clear enough idea of the point that I want to make to understand why statement b is creeping off the path I want to go.
One easy way to counter debate creep is to not engage the fallacy. From the start, ask what the hell does that have to do with anything? If you’re meme-inclined, Fallacy Ref on Facebook has some excellent ones such as that above2. An understanding of what statement (a) is trying to accomplish will help identify when creep is occurring. A quick suggestion to get back on topic is all that is necessary.
1. All politicians lie is not an excuse. Just because one person lies, it doesn’t mean it’s okay for everyone to lie.
2. I highly recommend that you follow this page for all your fallacy related meme needs.