The Role of Circular Reasoning in Debates and Strategies

Debates are often viewed as structured games, with clear rules and objectives. But what happens when these 'rules' aren't applied consistently by all participants? This article explores the use and implications of circular reasoning in debates, highlighting how it can be both a strategic tool and a technique to manipulate outcomes.

Defining Debates as Games

Imagine a debate as a structured game. Let's establish certain 'rules':

You lose points for using invalid/non-cogent reasoning. You lose points for using false premises.

The purpose of imposing these rules is clear: to ensure the best conclusions are celebrated. Soundness and cogency in reasoning should be valued above all, as they lead to credible and logical arguments.

The Flaws in the Ideal Game

However, these rules are not universally applied. Opponents may not follow the same 'game' rules. Instead, they may prioritize consensus, unshakeable belief, or personal victories over sound reasoning. This raises the question: can soundness and cogency be effective when not all players adhere to the same rules?

Non-Cogent Reasoning as a Strategy

Circular reasoning, often used as a fallacy, can be a powerful strategy when the goal is to maintain unwavering conviction. When faced with arguments that seek to establish a clear conclusion, proponents may adopt circular reasoning as a defense mechanism. Here's why:

Unwavering Conviction: Circular reasoning ensures that each argument can be met with a response that reaffirms the original premise. This creates a fortress of self-supporting beliefs that are difficult to challenge. Defending Against Axioms: When opponents accuse circular arguments of being based on false or arbitrary axioms, proponents often counter by questioning the validity of axioms altogether. This strategy turns the critique on its head, shifting focus away from the core argument. Solipsism and Perceived Equivalence: By rejecting axioms, some may argue that their opponent is engaging in solipsism. However, this is a false equivalence, as both sides may rely on axioms in their arguments.

Is this strategy intellectually dishonest? Yes. However, it's important to recognize that such opponents are not playing the game of intellectual honesty. Their goal is to appear credible and invincible, not to seek genuine understanding or change.

Exploiting Gullible Supporters

Circular reasoning can also be a valuable tool for those who aim to manipulate the beliefs of their audience. These individuals often seek to convince as many people as possible for personal gain. They deliberately use poor reasoning to filter out critical voices, allowing only those who are easily convinced to join their 'flock'.

For these debaters, the value of circular reasoning is not in its validity but in its effectiveness. They measure success not by the number of non-believers convinced, but by the financial or social benefits they receive from their gullible supporters.

Recognizing and Countering Circular Reasoning

Identifying and countering circular reasoning is crucial for any debater. However, it's essential to understand that your opponent may not be playing by the same rules. Recognizing this can help in developing an effective strategy:

Understand Their Goals: Your opponent may define 'winning' differently than you do. While you seek logical consistency, they may prioritize personal gain or unshakeable belief. Stay Calm: Frustration can be a tactic used by opponents to misdirect and demoralize. By remaining calm and focused, you can maintain your composure and counter their strategies effectively. Winning by Default: In some cases, the use of circular reasoning can lead to a situation where you are the undoubted winner simply because your opponent cannot disprove your arguments.

Understanding that not all opponents play by the same rules is essential. Recognizing their strategies can help you develop a more effective approach to debates and arguments.

By understanding and effectively countering circular reasoning, you can maintain your credibility and ensure that the focus remains on logical and sound arguments.