1 vote

What is this rhetorical tactic called?

A theological debate in another context, but I'm looking for the rhetorical label with this question.

The debate is over coerced obedience to God. My argument is that, since Christ was clear that it is what a person intends in his heart that is sin, then the person who is coerced into obeying God is not sinning less because the coercion stopped him. (Leaving the sin on the part of the coercer out of this debate.)

So, the rebuttal to an advocate of coerced obedience is that it is what is in the heart that matters.

The problem I'm running into is that gurus who argue FOR coerced obedience will first go on and on and on about how their primary concern is the heart (shepherding the heart is the nice-sounding phrase they use), but then tack on a case for coerced obedience. My problem is that the rebuttal to coerced obedience as having value is that it is the heart that matters. They are stating my rebuttal upfront, though it is incongruous with what they're advocating. They are basically stealing my rebuttal as if they've been advocating it all along, but it makes their case dissonant.

My defense against this is to call them on it, stating that, just because they said it first, doesn't make it not my rebuttal. I need to name that devil, put a label on it. What do you call the tactic of beating me to the punch by stating my rebuttal first, but pretending to hold both positions?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leggo my ergo.

When faced with someone who holds two seemingly incongruent positions, you merely need to point this out, not name the logical flaw. This is especially effective in a situation where some fallacy of ambiguity may be present. You don't want to be led into presenting a false dilemma.

You: "If it is truly only the heart that matters, why must one resort to coerced obedience?" Based on the context provided, this is all you need to say.

It seems as though your debaters believe that coerced obedience does not imply they care less about the heart. You need to investigate this and understand their argument for it.

For example,
Them: "In fact, what if coerced obedience functions as an expedient wisdom method which plays an important role in shepherding the heart? Thus, only one who does not care about the heart would neglect such a tool."

I think your problem should be resolved through greater understanding of each position rather than searching for the appropriate Latin phrase.

I'm still looking for the answer to this

I still need to name that devil.

Defend Liberty!

The southbound waste of a

The southbound waste of a northbound Bull?

I can't think of a proper term aside from "co-opting" good luck with that.