Sanctioning the devil

{{logicnav}}
'''Sanctioning the devil''' is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when Person A avoids [[debate]] with Person B because debating B would (supposedly) give B undue credit or "sanction" their views.

It is essentially a [[fallacy of opposition]] and an [[informal fallacy]].

==Form==
Sanctioning the [[devil]] follows the form:
{{syl
|2=Debating '''X''' gives them credibility.
|4='''X''' should not be given credibility.
|5=C|6='''X''' should not be debated.
}}

This argument is valid so long as the premises are valid. The fallacy most often occurs in P1 (debate does ''not'' lend credibility, if done correctly), but may occur in P2 (treating some view as inherently wrong and unworthy of consideration).

===Inverse form===
The inverse form of the fallacy (my opponent is too afraid to even debate me!) is very common among [[creationists]] and other [[cranks]].
{{syl
|2=If '''X''' refuses to debate, they are wrong.
|4='''X''' refused to debate.
|5=C|6='''X''' is wrong.
}}

P1 is simply incorrect (in general and in specific — see the exceptions section), and so the conclusion does not follow.

==Explanation==

Debating an adversary, or "sanctioning the devil", supposedly shows that their position is at least partially credible, while denial of the opponent indicates that their arguments are not even worthy of consideration.

However, while avoiding the debate and presenting your viewpoint as a unified message is an effective strategy, it is not (according to [[Empiricism|empirical]] studies of people observing) as strong as presenting your viewpoint ''and'' [[Refutation|refuting]] one or more alternative views.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110813220639/http://comops.org/journal/2007/03/27/sanctioning-the-devil/ Sanctioning the Devil]</ref>

Avoiding debate altogether lets the undebated opponent paint their view as ironclad and irrefutable — or why else would their cowardly debate opponent run from the debate?

==Exceptions==
It is acceptable to avoid debate if one knows that one is not prepared. For example, many [[evolution]] proponents are not up-to-date on [[List of creationist claims|each kind of creationist argument]], and may feel that they are unable to accurately represent [[science]].

Alternately, one may avoid debate [[WOMBAT|if one knows it cannot produce useful knowledge]]. For example, many creationists simply [[Gish Gallop]] their opponent out of existence; this mistakenly gives the impression of creationist success.

Debating an opponent repeatedly when the opponent has clearly failed to prove an argument and has no new [[evidence]] devolves into the [[balance fallacy]].

==Examples==
*[[No platform|We are not going to give]] this [insert [[loaded language]]/slur here] a platform!
*Very often, proponents of evolution refuse to even debate creationists, on the principle that "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig]</ref>
:*Even more often, creationists claim that evolutionists don't debate them because evolution is false.

==See also==
*[[Bill Nye debates Ken Ham]]
*[[Hierarchy of disagreement]]

==External links==
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20051212105533/http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html sanctioning the devil], Diana Mertz Hsieh
*[http://www.seekfind.net/Sanctioning_the_Devil_Fallacy__Avoiding_Sanctioning_the_Devil.html Sanctioning the Devil Fallacy], [[SeekFind.net]]
*[https://books.google.com/books?id=WFvhN9lSm5gC&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=Sanctioning+the+Devil&source=bl&ots=SyZfusU6qz&sig=kF5jLjLuz10tt267cr3KQ-DXndY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMI1di485qYxwIVCHs-Ch0vbQuw#v=onepage&q=Sanctioning%20the%20Devil&f=false Sanctioning the Devil], Logically Fallacious

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Informal fallacies