Slippery Slope Arguments¶
Walton, D. N. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Clarendon Press.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Slippery Slope
- This distinction matters practically because slippery-slope objections frequently appear in public policy debate, bioethics, and legal reasoning (as "floodgate arguments"), where they can block consideration of an initial proposal's own merits by invoking speculative downstream consequences
This sourceWalton's treatment of slippery-slope objections, including the initial action premise S weighed as a proposal, euthanasia cases, and floodgate reasoning about conceding a first precedent.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“Initial action premise S. is up for [consideration] as a proposal that seems initially like something”
- This distinction matters practically because slippery-slope objections frequently appear in public policy debate, bioethics, and legal reasoning (as "floodgate arguments"), where they can block consideration of an initial proposal's own merits by invoking speculative downstream consequences
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:0b55a26523c4 · see in the full table