From Anthem Labs comes another exciting new logical fallacy, the Flase Claim of Victory Fallacy!
Like the Ad Squared Fallacy (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=162854), this is actually a specific type of other fallacies that is common enough that I think it deserves its own name.
I don’t think its been explicitly defined anywhere, but I could be wrong, and I’m sure other people have thought of it before, but here’s the gist of my thoughts:
Party A makes an argument
Party B counters
Party A counter-counters
Party B claims victory because of reason ‘x’
Claiming victory in an argument with no pre-established rules is just stupid. It’s impossible without the other party ceding a point. When neither side budges, there can be no victory. Why? Because both parties have to agree on the mode of victory and defeat. A formal debate may be judged and both parties agree that the judge is the deciding factor, but without such rules, even if 99% of the world agrees with one of the parties, the other party may still claim victory for another reason. The only way to ‘win’ is to get your opponent to admit defeat. There is no superior ground to be gained when arguing, especially when done through a computer screen.
It can be completely evident to almost everyone that one party has won an agrument, but that does not mean the other party will stop the fight. One could point out to another why their argument is wrong, why he thinks the other has lost, and that everyone agrees that he has lost, but it is all in an attempt to get the other to admit defeat. Otherwise, both sides are reduced to claiming victory on unestablished grounds.
This fallacy is a combination of straw man and ad hominem fallacies.
The straw man fallacy is committed when one side claims victory, implying that the other had the intention of victory for himself, and also that he is finished arguing. Obviously if he is not finished, his position is being misrepresented by the other side saying he is defeated. It also misrepresents what the he thinks defeat is, because he does not agree that he is defeated, and the terms were not agreed upon beforehand.
The ad hominem fallacy is commited when the side claiming victory tries to discredit the opponent by saying he has already lost when he has not. Again, without formal rules, there is no victory and defeat unless one side admits to defeat.
The False Claim of Victory Fallacy is often used by one side trying to get the other to become angry and yell, “No you don’t! I win!” so that the original perpetrator of the fallacy can call the other out on being emotional, which leads to an even deeper ad hominem with which they can again falsely claim victory.
I’ll take any questions now.