BROADCASTS.com

b'

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/

The fallacy of\\xa0Proving Too Much\\xa0is when you challenge an argument because, in addition to proving its intended conclusion, it also proves obviously false conclusions. For example, if someone says \\u201cYou can\\u2019t be an atheist, because it\\u2019s impossible to disprove the existence of God\\u201d, you can answer \\u201cThat argument proves too much. If we accept it, we must also accept that you can\\u2019t disbelieve in Bigfoot, since it\\u2019s impossible to disprove his existence as well.\\u201d

I love this tactic\\xa0so much. I only learned it had a name quite recently, but it\\u2019s been my default style of argument for years. It neatly cuts through complicated issues that might otherwise be totally irresolvable.

Because here is a fundamental principle of the\\xa0Dark Arts\\xa0\\u2013 you don\\u2019t need an argument that can\\u2019t be disproven, only an argument that can\\u2019t be disproven in the amount of time your opponent has available.

In a presidential debate, where your opponent has three minutes, that means all you need to do is come up with an argument whose disproof is\\xa0inferentially distant\\xa0enough from your audience that it will take your opponent more than three minutes to explain it, or your audience more than three minutes\\u2019 worth of mental effort to understand the explanation.