"At least I didn't do [x]!" fallacy

[brianeyci]

What exactly is this. An example is politicians. Their usual rebuttal to accusations is to go on the "offense" and not defend their record. Their idea is to point to some policy decision in the past in their opponent which was as bad or worse. For example Al Gore blasted Canada's environmental plan. And our government's response was basically, Al Gore did a lot worse when he was in power, attacking Al Gore. And of course this brings up an endless stream of vendettas, bringing up things from ten years ago nobody cares about. No wonder people are disillusioned about politics.

Since when is that a valid rebuttal at all, and why is it so effective. It even works on a personal level. If someone criticizes you, one of the most effective counterattacks (although probably dishonest) is to say you're not as bad as he is. And if you can say you're better than he is, then it seems the point is countered, even though it's not really. For example, if someone says you're out of shape, an effective reply to a fat person would be, he's even more out of shape and a fatass. It's usually enough to make the person seem like he's lost, but the point was not answered.

It's even bad debating to go on the defense, even though it's more honest to answer your opponent's points. If you answer your opponent's points and do only that, you allow your opponent to frame the debate and ask leading questions. Sucker you in. Not to mention in real life there's always a time limit. If you're around friends or talking, you don't have 30 minutes to think of an answer. So the choice becomes a dilemma, either reply to the point in depth and appear to be weak, or ignore the point and go on the offense.

[Darth Raptor]

It's actually not always a fallacy. When it is it's either a form of ad hominem or to quoque fallacy. But if they were to be really honest about it, politicians really are sometimes trying to make the case that they're the least horrible of those running. There's nothing inherently fallacious about that, even if it is really, really sad.

[Hawkwings]

There's a difference between honest debating and effective for TV debating.

[Surlethe]

It's just a misdirection. In some cases, as Raptor points out, it can be a tu quoque, but in general it's a red herring.

[Darth Servo]

In politics, the decision is often seen as being between the lesser of two evils. And no, its not logical.