I know someone who doesn’t believe in climate change because Al Gore flies on private jets.
That’s a terrible argument. Gore’s carbon footprint has nothing to do with whether carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The science stands regardless of who delivers the message.
But here’s what bothers me: bad arguments don’t just fail to convince people. They make good conclusions look suspicious.
When you hear a weak argument for something true, it plants doubt about the truth itself. If the best defense someone can offer is so flimsy, maybe the whole position is questionable.
This happens everywhere. Someone argues against racism by saying “we’re all the same inside” — which isn’t really true in any meaningful biological sense. Someone defends charitable giving because “it makes you feel good” — turning ethics into self-interest.
The conclusions might be right. Racism is wrong. Charity matters. But sloppy reasoning makes these positions seem naive or unreflective.
I think this is why good arguments matter even when you already believe the conclusion. Bad reasoning doesn’t just fail to persuade — it actively damages the credibility of true things.
Truth deserves better advocates than it usually gets.
The strongest position can be undermined by its weakest defender. And unfortunately, the weakest defenders are often the loudest ones.