Reducteo Trap

This is a brief explanation of a form of argumentation I will call "The Reducteo Trap".

There are few things more gratifying than the Reducteo Trap. The Reducteo Trap is a variation of Reducteo ad Absurdum (or just Reducteo, as I’ll call it), and was one of the primary weapons in Socrates’ arsenal. The Reducteo technique is where you assume the truth of your opponent’s position and demonstrate how it leads to absurd, contradictory, or undesirable conclusions. Reducteo is very effective against opponent’s who hold broad or uncompromising positions, as these sorts of positions often do not leave “wiggle room” for outlier examples and situations.

Here’s an example of Reducteo ad Absurdum:

Person A: I believe that God instantiates the soul at the time of conception.

Person B: Okay, if that’s true, then what happens with natural spontaneous abortions? Does God kill the soul when this occurs? Or what about chimeras? Does God create a second soul when the embryo splits, or does the soul divide into two souls?

In the above example, Person A held a very strong belief. Person B assumed they were correct, and demonstrated absurd conclusions or questions we must then ask if we assume as such.

The Reducteo Trap is where you attempt to lead the opponent toward their own absurd or contradictory conclusions, or simply be forced to accept your own position. The goal of the Reducteo Trap is to eventually arrive at the Reducteo ad Absurdum situation, by way of getting your opponent to admit several small, seemingly innocuous premises. Put simply, you force your opponent to build the premises of your own argument. The primary difference between normal Reducteo ad Absurdum and the Reducteo Trap is who actually makes the argument. The Reducteo Trap involves the opponent admitting to their own contradictions or absurdity, instead of you pointing it out to them. This makes it significantly more powerful.

I certainly did not create this technique. This is taken directly from the methods of Socrates. He would simply ask so called experts about their positions and beliefs, and eventually get them to accept absurd or contradictory conclusions. He did not do this by brow beating or inflammatory language – he simply guided the ‘expert’ in the construction of their own position in such a manner as to allow it to be easily toppled.

Another way to explain this is to make reference to a common fallacy – The Strawman. With the Reducteo Trap, you attempt to lure your opponent into “Strawmanning” themselves. Basically, you lead them along so that they present their own position in an manner that is easy for you to defeat.

For those of you that have held discussions and debates with me, you have probably experienced the Reducteo Trap first hand. It is definitely my preferred method of argumentation.

Do any of you have a preferred method of argumentation? If so, I’d love to hear about it!