The document discusses the logical fallacy of appeal to force (also known as argumentum ad baculum), where a person is threatened with unpleasant consequences if they do not agree with the proposition. It provides examples of how this fallacy can be used in politics, such as threats of being seen as unpatriotic or allowing further loss of liberties if one does not support a particular policy or candidate. While threats can be persuasive, the appeal to force fallacy is logically unsound because the truth or falsity of the proposition is unrelated to any threats made against those who disagree.

1. Appeal to Force
(argumentum ad baculum)
Definition:
The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow if they do
not agree with the author.
Examples:
i. You had better agree that the new company policy is the best bet if you
expect to keep your job.
ii. NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA then we will vote
you out of office.
Proof:
Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the threat is
unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.
References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151, Copi and Cohen: 103
Appeal to Force
Alias: Argumentum ad Baculum
Translation: "Argument from the
stick" (Latin)
Types:
Appeal to Consequences
One-Sidedness
Example:
Students stormed the stage at Columbia University's Roone auditorium
yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the
founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America
and Mexico. Mr. Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, another member of his group,

2. were in the process of giving a speech at the invitation of the Columbia
College Republicans. They were escorted off the stage unharmed and exited
the auditorium by a back door. … The student protesters…booed and shouted
the speakers down throughout. They interrupted Mr. Stewart…. A student's
demand that Mr. Stewart speak in Spanish elicited thundering applause and
brought the protesters to their feet. The protesters remained standing, turned
their backs on Mr. Stewart for the remainder of his remarks, and drowned him
out by chanting, "Wrap it up, wrap it up!" … On campus, the Republicans'
flyers advertising the event were defaced and torn down.
Analysis of the Example
Source: Eliana Johnson, "At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman
Founder", The New York Sun, 10/5/2006
Exposition:
The name "argumentum ad baculum" alludes to the use of a stick, or
club―a "baculum" was a walking-stick or staff―to beat someone. As a
logical fallacy, "ad baculum" or "appeal to force" applies to the use of
force and, by extension, the use of threats of force to "win" a debate.
There are two types of logical error that may be involved in appeals to
force:
1. Some appeals to force may be appeals to the consequences of a
belief. What sets the appeal to force apart from other appeals to
consequences is that the bad consequences appealed to―that is,
the use of force―will be caused by the arguer. Attempts to change
people's minds by threats of punishment are appeals to
consequences, since the bad consequences appealed to are not
consequences of what is believed, but of the belief itself. As such,
they are irrelevant to the truth-value of the belief.
However, because it is impossible to read a person's mind, the
attempt to use force or threats to change minds is usually
ineffective. Instead, threats are more commonly reasons to act,
and as such can be good reasons to do so if the threat is plausible.
People are sometimes intimidated into pretending to believe
things that they don't, but this is not coming to believe something
because of the fear of force. So, appeals to force which are appeals

3. to consequence may fail one criterion of a logical fallacy, namely,
that it be a common type of bad argument.
2. When force or the threat of force is used to suppress the
arguments of one side in a debate, that is a type of one-sidedness.
Governments are always tempted to use police powers to prevent
criticism of their policies, and totalitarian governments are
frequently successful in doing so. Extremists use threats or actual
violence to silence those who argue against them. Audience
members "shout down" a debater whom they disagree with in
order to prevent a case from being heard. This is, unfortunately,
common enough to qualify as a logical fallacy.
However, force or the threat of it is not an argument, which means
that appealing to force is not a logical fallacy. Since hitting
someone over the head with a stick is not an argument at all, a
fortiori it is not a fallacious one. However, withholding relevant
information can lead people into drawing falseconclusions.
For these reasons, calling the appeal to force a "logical fallacy" is misleading.
More accurately, it is a logical boobytrap, that is, a way of tricking someone
else into reasoning incorrectly.
Appeal to Force
Explanation
An appeal to force is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin
name, “argumentum ad baculum”, literally means “argument with a
cudgel”. Disbelief, such arguments go, will be met with sanctions,
perhaps physical abuse; therefore, you’d better believe.
Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to
consequences, where the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are
deliberately inflicted by the arguer.
Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is
only a pragmatic justification of belief; it is not evidence that the
resultant belief will be true. Appeals to force are therefore fallacious.
Example
(1) If you don’t accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the
other way around, then you’ll be excommunicated from the Church.
Therefore:
(2) The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around.

4. This argument, if it can properly be called an argument, makes no
attempt to provide evidence for its conclusion; whether or not you’ll
be excommunicated for disbelieving the geocentric model has no
bearing on whether the geocentric model is true. The argument
therefore commits the appeal to force fallacy.
Logical Fallacies in Politics: Appeal
to Force
The job of a politician is persuasion. By force of argument or force of
personality, the politician must persuade people that something needs
to be done, and that s/he is the best person to ensure that it is done.
While most politicians sincerely believe they are acting for the greater
good, their arguments tend to take shortcuts. This is not malicious, in
most cases; people do not generally have the time or inclination to
digest full discussions of the issues, so points come through more
easily in sound byte form. Even so, it is useful to examine the way
politicians argue, if only to challenge simple answers and work toward
what really matters with regard to an issue.
Appeal to Force Explained
An appeal to force comes when an argument either implies or states
that harm will come to the listener or reader if s/he does not accept
the conclusion. The simplest example would be that of a schoolyard
bully arguing that a smaller child wants to hand over his/her lunch
money, because if s/he doesn't, the bully will hit him/her. It can be a
very powerful argument, to be sure, but it is not logically sound
because the conclusion does not follow from the premise; the logical
conclusion would be that the child does not want to hand over the
money, but prefers it to being hit.

5. Appeal to Force in Politics
A more subtle version of the appeal to force comes when there is no
direct threat, but rather an implicit one. As politicians in the United
States will not get far with direct threats of violence, this is the form
the fallacy is more likely to take. One example is the passage of the
"Patriot Act," in which several civil liberties were rolled back. The
appeal to force came to two different groups of people: Congress and
the general public. For the former, the argument was something like
this: We are at war, and you should support the Patriot Act, because if
you do not, then you are unpatriotic and will be seen as helping
terrorists. There is no direct physical threat, but the threat to career
aspirations of those who wanted to be elected to additional terms was
unmistakable. While the threat was powerful, though, the threat of
losing political careers had nothing to do in this case with the value of
the act itself. In fact, most congresspeople have since admitted that
they passed the act without even reading it.
A similar appeal, also implicit, went to the general public. In this case,
the argument was that if people did not accept the Patriot Act's terms,
they would risk being attacked again by terrorists. In the wake of 9/11,
this was a powerful argument indeed. Still, rolling back civil liberties
does not ensure America will not be attacked again, nor does it mean
that the Patriot Act is the only or best way to help prevent future
attacks.

6. In the current political climate, the appeal to force comes from a
different angle. Candidates, particularly democratic candidates, argue
that they should be elected because if they are not, Americans will
continue to lose important liberties and rights. Again, they believe
their message, but that does not make it a sound argument. Losing
liberties is a frightening proposition for most, but the possibility of
this occurring does not in itself make any individual candidate the best
choice. In fact, Congress is responsible for rewriting and passing this
act, or repealing it, or allowing it to remain in force. Further, most of
the candidates running for president are currently members of
Congress - and with the exception of having veto power, they have
more control over the fate of legislation there than they would as
president. Again, the appeal to force does not logically lead to the
conclusion that one of these candidates must be elected.
Conclusion
None of this is meant to imply that the administration did not firmly
believe the Patriot Act was the best way to address terrorist threats in
the wake of 9/11, or that candidates now do not sincerely believe they
are the best choices to lead the country forward. What it does mean,
though, is that the arguments described above not logically sound.
Indeed, the act has come under a great deal of scrutiny after the fact,
and some of its provisions have been modified already. Looking
through the arguments at the time and addressing the merits of the act
could have sped up the process and led to a much fuller debate on the
topic.

7. The appeal to force is a powerful argumentative weapon, but it is not
sound logically. When one has the ability to look past the threat in the
argument, one can look at the merits of the issue and decide
accordingly.