Begging the Question

When someone who is debating an issue assumes the answer to the very point that is being debated, that argument is said to "Beg the Question". This is also known as circular reasoning.

Those of the Minuteman-like groups who argue their position Beg the Question because they assume the dump truck of statistical speculation they dump into your lap really supports their contention that ALL "Legal/Illegal Mexican Migrant Workers" are:

1. drug runners.
2. murderers.
3. men who want to rape your daughters.
4. people who want to rape, rob, and pillage you.
5. people who want to close your hospitals.
6. people who have run Americans out of countless cities and communities.
7. people who have ruined school systems.
8. people who have thrown trash throughout the park systems.
9. people who have brutalized our schools with their language.

(I would dare add here that I will continue to characterize their position as applying to Mexican "legals" and "illegals" until I hear a change in their rhetoric and a retraction printed to the contrary.)

Here is a classic example of a Begging the Question argument that I've heard from readers about the articles I have written concerning the "Gay Movement".

Doug's Question: What scientific evidence exists to prove that gays are born gay?

Reader's Answer: How dare you reject the "indisputable evidence" just because you are a religious fanatic.

This reader assumes the very point we are debating. This reader assumes there is such a preponderance of evidence to support his contention that "all gays are born that way" that only a "religious fanatic" could possibly reject the "indisputable evidence".

A person who uses this Question-Begging Argument (circular reasoning) typically believes that ALL THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT EXCEPTION is on their side of the fence and that only a fool could possibly reject the claim they are using that "evidence" to support their position in the debate.

This person, using this fallacy, will try to put you in the position of arguing against the mountain of "speculative statistics" which he used to construct a very nice Straw Man,[1] made not of the statistical results of "the test of experimentation",[2] but from the "improper use of statistics".[3]

If you allow this Straw Man maker to define the parameters of the argument in this way then you've lost before you begin the debate. How can you possibly debate someone who argues in a circle and with a construct of his own making"The Straw Man?

Do you see how this form of reasoning (linear) connects together like a chain?

Here is another example of the Begging the Question argument:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know?"
Bill: "Because the Bible says so".
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God".[4]

While I most certainly believe that God exists, I would not use this circular reasoned argument for proof. There are better arguments to use.

This is not one of them.

So how does this apply to the subject we've been discussing""Legal/Illegal Mexican Migrant Workers"?

Doug Wrote: "The number-one answer we give is that we simply could no longer afford to live in America, so we found a country where we could, and moved there. And your second line, "...all my needed prescriptions refilled. I knew, from our research, to expect cheaper prices but I didn't know how cheap!""

Reader's Response: "First of all, do you ever question WHY medical insurance is so costly in the United States? Perhaps you should look to the reason behind it. Do you question WHY your hospital bills and medical care is so costly in the United States, thereby causing you to leave America, per your column? You should have questioned that as well. The reason, in layman's terms, is simple."

This was a Begging the Question argument because the reader had already assumed the point in dispute. This reader already assumed, before even typing the words on the keyboard, that ALL the evidence on his side of the fence was "indisputably correct" and tried to get me to argue against his mountain of "speculative statistics" with which he had constructed his Straw Man.

Do not forget that apart from the "test of experimentation" your "stats", your "proof" are speculation"opinion!

Doug Wrote: "I had stated my reasons for living in Mexico and my opinions about the dreaded "X"-word (xenophobia)".

Reader's Response: "I do not understand your choice to live in a country that is systematically exporting its poor, its sick, and its criminals to the United States of America."

I mention this example even though it is not a strong Begging the Question argument example. But it most certainly assumes "the point in dispute". It assumes that there is "indisputable evidence" that Mexico (and I assume he meant Mexico's government) is actively and with intent "exporting its poor, its sick, and its criminals to the United States of America".

I will use this same sample in the next column""Phony-Baloney Detection Lesson #5": Lack of Testability

[1] See Phony-Baloney Detection Lesson #3
[2] See Phony-Baloney Detection Lesson #2
[3] See Phony-Baloney Detection Lesson #1
[4] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html