Poisoning the well

Structure

Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an informal fallacy.

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented by another. Example: "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail."
2. Therefore, the claims made by person A will be false.

Poisoned-well arguments are sometimes used with preemptive invocations of the association fallacy. In this pattern, an unfavorable attribute is ascribed to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children." Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to themselves in the process. This is a false dilemma: not all future opponents necessarily have the unfavorable attribute. For example, not everyone who has a different opinion on funding the public education system necessarily hates children.

A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:

1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) that prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position).
2. Any claims without first agreeing with the above definitions are automatically dismissed.

Example: "Boss, you heard my side of the story, and why I think Bill should be fired and not me. Now, I am sure Bill is going to come to you with some pathetic attempt to weasel out of this lie that he has created."

References

References

1. Walton, Douglas N.. (1987). "Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms". [[John Benjamins Publishing]].
2. Bennett, Bo. "Poisoning the Well".
3. "Poisoning the Well".
4. (2018). "Bad Arguments".