search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

# Argument by Repetition

(also known as: argument from nagging, proof by assertion)

Description: Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence.

Logical Form:

X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true... etc.

Example #1:

That movie, “Kill, Blood, Gore” deserves the Oscar for best picture.  There are other good movies, but not like that one.  Others may deserve an honorable mention, but not the Oscar, because “Kill, Blood, Gore” deserves the Oscar.

Explanation: There are no reasons given for why, Kill, Blood, Gore deserves the Oscar, not even any opinion shared.  All we have is a repeated claim stated slightly differently each time.

Example #2:

Saul: At one time, all humans spoke the same language.  Then because of the Tower of Babel, God got angry and created all the different languages we have today -- or at least some form of them.

Kevin: I studied linguistics in college, and I can pretty much guarantee you that’s not what happened.  Besides the short story in the Bible, what other evidence do you have to support this theory?

Saul: We know, because of the Word of God, that God got angry and created all the different languages we have today -- or at least some form of them.

Kevin: You said that already.  What other evidence do you have to support this theory?

Saul: In the Bible, it says that all humans once spoke the same language.  Then because of the Tower of Babel, God got angry and created all the different languages we have today -- or at least some form of them.

Kevin: (nauseated from the repetition, hurls all over Saul’s slacks)

Explanation: Restating the same claims, even rearranging the words or substituting words, is not the same as making new claims, and certainly does not make the claims any more true.

Exception: When an opponent is attempting to misdirect the argument, repeating the argument to get back on track is a wise play.

Tip: Repetition can be a good strategy when your interlocutor does not seem to be acknowledging your point. Rather than repeat yourself, rephrase and repeat. Make your same point but in a different way.

References:

This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

### Eat Meat... Or Don't.

#### Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

##### Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book