The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Slippery Slope arguments are useful

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 347 times Debate No: 79538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. It is irrational, yet very effective.


I agree with what Con said and it all supports the resolution.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I don't really see how slippery slope arguments have anything to do with reality. When women demanded rights men said 'what is next?' Do we give animals the right to vote?. How is that rational.


Con has yet to rebut anything they said in Round 1, all of which I assert as true and am meeting my burden of proof by doing so.

Con's point in Round 2 is that men said 'what is next?' but he provides no evidence of them ever saying this because it's a lie and didn't happen.

Animals do not have the right to vote, this however has nothing to do with the resolution whatsoever.
Debate Round No. 2


Here is the proof:

Their reason for not wanting women's rights was 'BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.'

That is a slippery slope argument used against women's rights.


It is also one singular example of slippery slope not being valid but still being useful as a debate tool which is, after all, sufficient enough to support the resolution.

I thank thee for this easy won, good fellow!

Here's a link for evidence of slippery slope being a valid argumentation in ethics:
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: TheDebater_101// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources

[*Reason for removal*] This vote contains no actual reasoning. The voter must explain why they felt Con had better sources, and not merely assert that it is true.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really think any sort of an argument took place. They both just provided links as their proof so the only thing I could judge this debate on was the reliability of the sources and since Tough's source provided more information and was more reliable Tough wins the sources points. Con used a newspaper as evidence which is often bias. The BBC provides a balanced argument and is therefore considered to be more reliable.