Proverbs 10:11 “The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.”
Proverbs 10:31 “The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but a perverse tongue will be cut out.”
Proverbs 11:9 “With his mouth the godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escape.”
Another very common way to tarnish a debate is to cast doubt or in some way misinterpret the source of information. I find that often people will come to me and say or express doubt about a particular news caster or news channel that they are not reliable because they are to leftist or too conservative.
They will always come and say: “Consider the source.” I am not saying that we should not consider the source, because we should, but to completely shut them out is not right either, because of certain issues they could be telling us the truth. A habitual liar could still be telling the truth on certain matters under debate.
Corrupt character may well imply something is not right in one’s argument, but it does not necessarily mean that there is not an element of truth in what is being said or debated.
“Poisoning the well” was an act of warfare in ancient times to kill unsuspecting villagers. Even today the “poisoning of the well” or water supply is a possible terrorist tactic. People know that drawing water from a poisoned well they can die. Likewise, if someone can discredit their intellectual opponent, then an audience will instinctively reject the opponent’s arguments as well. He has “poisoned the well.” Not only is the opponent’s source rejected, but also any future facts that he might bring out.
There are two things to do in order to defeat this fallacy. First, one must bring out the facts. Even if the person is the vilest person alive, there still can be an element of truth in the argument.
The person might be vile, but….
Or the source might be lopsided, but….
We always need to look at the argument itself and not get sidetracked by the “poisoning of the well.”
Also, when a person tries to “poison the well” it could very well be that he is showing his own vulnerability in the debate in putting forth the “poisoning of the well” fallacy to cover his own intellectual cowardice. In other words: perhaps he is afraid to address the real issue?
People who “poison the well” can pertain to any source: people, nations, races, eras, universities, ideologies, etc. In other words, an argument that says: “Do not believe anything coming from………”
Did the Pharisees “poison the well” when they said that Jesus cast out demons by the power of the prince of demons? Yes, they were trying to refute who Jesus was and get the audience not to believe anything Jesus said. But, Jesus refuted this fallacy by pointing out that people are known by their works.
We really need the gift of discernment today.