My First Fallacy: Bulverism

[underused]

I while ago I decided I wanted to learn more about fallacies--that is, the errors in logic that make arguments pointless.

In an age where post-truth isn't a satirical concept (jebus, here we are) I hear a lot of debates and arguments that sound like bunco. Frustratingly, I can't always articulate what it is my brain can't accept.

So I am initiating a regular feature I'm calling My First Fallacy. It has to be basic (because I'm no expert), but hopefully it will be interesting, too.

Naturally, I'm going to pick the ones with the coolest names first. ☺

---

Bulverism

Bulverism is a one-two punch by which a debater assumes an opponent's argument is wrong (without offering proof) and then "backs up" the assertion by going after the opponent personally.

Let's use a totally unrealistic example:

Person A: Climate change is happening.
Person B: No it isn't; you're just saying that because you're a lefty.

Coined by C. S. Lewis in 1941, he created a fictional character--Ezekiel Bulver--to embody the concept. I've quoted his own explanation below, because he's hella fun to read:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself... If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time... It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. [source]