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