The Kryptonite Bullet Fallacy

Debunking an argument often seems as simple as providing facts or reasoning that contradict your opponent's claim.  However, your claims must be philosophically consistent, and support your argument when the logic is applied in reverse.

In the Superman comic series, the character Bloodsport makes Kryptonite bullets in order to kill Clark Kent. He, of course, fails in killing Clark, and ends up dying; bleeding out of a wound created by one of the very Kryptonite bullets that he manufactured to kill Superman.  This is because he failed to realize one thing: A Kryptonite bullet is specifically made to kill Superman;  however, it will also kill an ordinary human, just like any other bullet.

Similarly, a Kryptonite bullet argument is an argument specifically designed to destroy an opponent’s argument, but—upon further examination—the same logic would disprove the creator’s argument as well.

The kryptonite bullet fallacy is commonly used in politics.

A striking example of this occurred when Reza Aslan was interviewed by Fox News.  Throughout the interview, Lauren Green implies that because Aslan is a Muslim he is unqualified to author a book analyzing Jesus Christ from a historical perspective, despite the fact that he is a scholar of religion, with four degrees—including a Ph.D. in sociology and a Master's in New Testament studies—, is fluent in biblical Greek, and was formerly Christian.

If this same logic was applied to other religio-scholastic books, then no one is qualified to write a book about a religion they are not currently a part of, including Fox News personality Brian Kilmeade, who wrote a book about Islam in relation to the Tripolitan War.  And if this same logic were continued, I certainly don't know what to think about my world religions book, written by a Christian about six different religions.

Another example of this fallacy can be found in statements made regarding the removal of the Title II designation of the internet by the FCC on December 14, 2017.  Many on the political left called this decision tyrannical because it was in opposition to public opinion, with 83% of voters opposing the change.  Yet these same people decried the recent removal of the Health Insurance Individual Mandate, despite the fact that 59% of Americans opposed the Affordable Care Act when it was passed in March 2010 (may I add support has never reached 50% since then).

If the logic that any government action contrary to public opinion is inherently tyrannical were applied universally, then the ACA must also be condemned as tyrannical.  Either both the removal of net neutrality restrictions and the passing of the ACA are both tyrannical, or neither are.

You'll hear kryptonite bullet arguments almost every day.  Kryptonite bullets are so common that if you point them out, you will likely win 9 out of 10 arguments you engage in.  Point them out on Twitter!  Call out your professors on them!  Without any formal training in logic and rhetoric, understanding this one fallacy will make you a logical super-star.  Try it.