Circular Arguments

Signs it might be this

• You ask ‘why do you think that?’ and the answer is the claim again, slightly rearranged.
• The reason offered is that the speaker is certain, experienced, or more thoughtful than you.
• Your disagreement is treated as proof of your lack of understanding.
• The talk keeps returning to the same sentence, with no new fact appearing for many minutes.
• A request for a source, example or witness is brushed off as insulting.

Signs it is probably something else

• A short, independent reason appears when you ask, even if you do not find it convincing.
• They say ‘we may just see this differently’ and leave the point there.
• The restating is a clarification, and they invite you to say which part is unclear.
• They point to a document, policy or person that you can go and check.
• The loop ends once someone takes a break or sleeps on it.
• An outside fact eventually enters the discussion, even if it arrives late.
• The other person is willing to say what would count as evidence against their claim.
• The loop is limited to one heated topic and does not shape the rest of your talks.

Questions to ask yourself

• If I ask what evidence would change their mind, do I get an answer?
• Is the reason given different from the claim, or the claim in new words?
• Has any new fact entered this conversation in the last ten minutes?
• Does my disagreement itself get used as the proof that I am wrong?
• Do they accept this kind of reasoning from me, or only from themselves?

What it is

A circular argument offers the conclusion as its own reason. It is true because it is true, or because the speaker feels sure.

Everyone slips into this in a quarrel. It matters when it is the main way a disagreement gets handled, and your questions are answered with a looped restatement.

The loop contains no checkable fact, so there is nothing to agree or disagree with. The talk can run for an hour without moving.

Why it matters

When every challenge sends you back to the starting point, you cannot win or lose. You cannot even learn what the other person bases their view on.

Long loops can wear a person down until agreeing seems easier than asking again for a reason.

How it shows up

• A claim supported by itself, as in ‘I’m right because I’m not wrong.’
• Reasons that, when examined, only repeat the point in different wording.
• A closed loop that gives your questions no checkable fact to land on.
• Often paired with a personal reason to dismiss your input, such as ‘you are too close to this to judge.’

What you can do

Pick what fits. You do not owe anyone a confrontation.

Words you could use

“I’ve listened closely, and the reason I keep hearing is the claim itself. I’m happy to continue if you can give me one reason that stands apart from it. If not, let’s leave it for today.”

Ask about it gently

Ask for the step between the claim and the reason: ‘I’m not following how you got there. What is the evidence underneath it?’

Set a clear limit

Name the loop and decline to continue it: ‘We have said the same sentence three times. I’d like one reason that’s different from the claim.’

Step back

If no new fact has appeared for a while, pause the discussion. Offer to pick it up after each of you has looked up what you can.

Get support

Write the argument out in a few lines and ask a friend whether the reasoning goes anywhere. Seeing it on paper often makes the loop obvious.

At work, school or with services

At work, ask for the policy, data or decision-maker behind a claim. Note in writing that ‘it is how we do things’ was the explanation you were given.

Using this label fairly

• Calling an argument circular can be a way of dodging a point you cannot answer. Check first whether you have really been given a reason.
• Calling someone’s logic circular in the middle of a quarrel may simply start a new loop about who is being logical.

How it differs from look-alikes

Deflection leaves the topic and wanders somewhere else. A circular argument stays on the topic and goes round it.

Moving Goalposts changes what would count as proof after you meet it, but here nothing could ever count, since no proof is allowed in. Countering flatly contradicts your account.

This tactic answers your question with the claim itself, dressed up as a reason.