The Emotional Trump
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
The Emotional Trump consists of inducing an emotion in the context of the argument so strong that it renders reasonable argument difficult or impossible. It can often be combined with other tactics and informal fallacies such as Poisoning the Well for greater effect.
[edit] Examples
Example 1:
- Protagonist: I enjoy drinking beer.
- Antagonist: So did the Nazis.
Example 2:
- Protagonist: I don't drink beer.
- Antagonist: Neither did Hitler.
[edit] Discussion
The strength of the emotional trump is that, once a rational argument has been converted to an emotional one, it is very difficult to return to reason. It is easy to insert an emotional trump into an argument and if done skillfully will pass unnoticed.
Nazi and Hitler metaphors are the classical examples of emotional trumps. However, many on-line debaters are familiar with Godwin's Law, so this is not as effective as it once was. There remain topics that can reliably be used to generate reason-impairing emotional responses, such as rape, child molestation, and child pornography. Anything bad that can happen to a sympathetic figure such as a child, a dog, a mother, a minority, the Earth, and so on can usually be turned into an emotional trump.
Other emotional trumps can have different effects depending on the audience. These are usually political. A mention of 9/11 can cause some audience members to feel rage against Islamic terrorism and others to feel rage against the US Government. This is not as much of a limitation as it may first seem. What is important is to induce rage and thus inhibit reason. Once the reason has been inhibited, it does not matter so much against whom the rage is directed.
The emotional trump can backfire if the party introducing the emotional trump is unable to win the argument on emotional basis either. For this reason, skilled but dishonest debaters will usually hold the emotional trump in reserve until later stages in the debate, when it becomes apparent that the debate cannot be won by more honest means. Inexperienced debaters and activists in other settings are usually more inclined to use the emotional trump earlier or even start off with it. Many political television programs consist almost entirely of emotional trumps.
Countering the emotional trump can be difficult if not done immediately. One can attempt to return to reason, but this often results in a counterattack to the effect that one is "cold" or "Mr. Spock." Furthermore, debates are largely an attempt to produce emotions in an audience, and the audience may enjoy some histrionics. Another way of countering an emotional trump is to trump the trumper. This is surprisingly easy. The more effective the original emotional trump, the less likely it is for a participant to be able to detect a reversal of the trumping using reason.
[edit] Exceptions to the Rule
A very few debates are legitimately about emotive topics in the context of morality or ethics.
