Poisoning the well

For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

Poisoning the well

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy in which the person making the fallacy seeks to discredit an opponent before that opponent has presented any arguments.

The negative information presented to discredit the opponent may be either true or false, but, as it is known to be negative, is presented solely to persuade the audience to view the opponent's later arguments as false regardless of their rationale.

Examples

• "When John E. Jones decided in 2005 to 'traipse into' the controversial area of evolution and science education, deciding the scientific merit of intelligent design as a federal court judge in Dover, PA, he may have only dreamed of the day when he would see himself on the silver screen. [...] Now PBS and NOVA are teaming up to produce what may be Judge Jones' dream come true. 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial' is a special 2-hour program devoted to the Dover trial as Judge Jones saw it." -- Anika Jones, "What NOVA Won't Tell You about Dover"
• "Scientists at Los Alamos — the good folks who unleashed the terror of atomic bombs on the world — are now proposing that we use bees to sniff out bomb-toting terrorists." (fictional example)

Discussion

The quality of an argument does not depend on the person making the argument, or that person's character, or any unsavory qualities the person might possess. The argument should stand on its own.

However, people can easily be biased against anything a "bad" person says. Poisoning the well exploits this propensity.

See also

• Argumentum ad hominem