Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to Episode 10 of Think Like a Debater.

I once heard this claim:

“Women are illogical; a logical person is not a real woman.”

Here is another:

“A good horse never returns to old pasture, because a horse that returns is not good.”

Both sound logically closed yet somehow wrong. They are circular arguments, today’s subject.

Circular reasoning, or begging the question, evades proof. It supplies no substantive reason, merely rephrases what must be proved, circles around, and packages the conclusion as self-evident evidence. It looks like argument but is not.

More formally, begging the question uses the proposition at issue, or something nearly identical, as evidence for itself.

Suppose someone holds the prejudice that women are illogical.

Ask why. How was it established? Are scientist Tu Youyou and astronaut Wang Yaping illogical?

Evidence might include statistics, research, evolution, history, and scientific theory that verify or falsify a claim.

Instead, someone protects the prejudice by saying “logical women are not real women,” “we call those women sir,” or “Wang Yaping does not feel feminine because she is strong in every way.” That is circular reasoning.

We can understand this at several levels.

“Logical people are not women” merely reverses “women are illogical.” No information beyond the conclusion is added. It proves the claim with itself, like saying I care because I do not fail to care, or the zoo is humane because it is not inhumane. The reasons say nothing.

How is gender-defined womanhood constructed? If strong women are excluded as tomboys, honorary men, or not real women, weakness is built into the definition. Why are women weak? Because only weak people count as women. This is not proof but stipulation, a definition completing the circle.

No argument has occurred.