The Talking Point Fallacy

Imagine you are listening to a heated conversation about, for the sake of argument, who makes the best cars.

Person A: ”… and so, with all of that being said, I believe that Hyundai is the best because they make the most reliable car at an affordable price.”

Person B: “—But Hyundai is not the best. Kia is because they typically offer better fuel efficiency. This is exhausting because all you’re doing is rattling off Hyundai talking points…”

Person A: “But as I said before, if Hyundai is not the best, Kia isn’t either. Because the idea that Kia is the best is simply a talking point that you’ve decided to parrot.

A talking point is something that lends support to an argument. On the other hand, it is more commonly defined as a prepared message on a topic that is often unoriginal, predictable, and usually communicated in politics or advertising. However, when someone claims that an argument or remark is a talking point, he or she almost invariably intends to discredit the claim that was just made. The connotation of this statement is that the original claim on the topic was made inorganically, without authentic forethought and/or with an uninteresting result.

The use of the term “talking point” is commonplace. You saw it in the debate over who makes the best cars and you likely witnessed it many, many other times in the real world. However, criticizing a statement as being a “talking point” is toothless because this counterclaim can be launched against almost any statement, written or verbal. The only prerequisites are that the claim under scrutiny be either

(a) similar to a statement made in the past by the same or another person or

(b) plausibly espoused by another person or group.

Virtually all statements fit this rubric. Further, by labelling something a “talking point”, the critic can knowingly or unknowingly sidestep the entire claim and he or she no longer has to contend with it. This is why the labelling of a statement as a “talking point” is a fallacy. Whether it’s done intentionally or not, it’s an attempt to nullify a claim without contending with the other person’s position at all.

One objection that might be raised to this is that the labelling of a statement as a talking point is a timesaver. The “talking point” has already been contended with at some earlier time, so it’s better to not waste any time cutting another head off of the proverbial hydra. Although this may seem compelling on the surface, unless the critic can be reasonably sure that the audience has heard the claim appropriately addressed, the critic is wasting the time of the audience because the label adds nothing of value to the discussion. It is better to either engage with the claim or to point to where that claim was addressed rather than casually dismiss it with the label.

Another objection that might be raised to the “talking point fallacy” is that the person making the statement or claim is applying a formula without even fully understanding the claim themselves. In this case, even if it also meets the common definition of a talking point, it does not absolve the critic of their responsibility to address the claim.

Finally, one other objection to the “talking point fallacy” is that even this article is spewing inane talking points. It’s worth noting that in this case, no matter who you think makes the best cars, this objection is just another talking point.