When people are confronted with serious flaws in their belief, especially contradictions, unjustified assumptions, or logical consequences they can’t accept; it’s not uncommon to see the conversation take a sharp turn. Rather than engaging with the issue directly, they shift the focus, redefine terms, or attack the person raising the objection.
These aren’t just frustrating conversation habits—they’re deflection tactics, used to preserve a worldview that’s beginning to crack.
Let’s look at some of the most common tactics people use to avoid dealing with exposed issues, and why each one ultimately fails.
1. Redirection (Changing the Subject)
Example:
Person A: “Your worldview can’t account for objective morality.”
Person B: “Well what about the Crusades and all the evil Christians have done?”
What’s happening:
The person is deflecting from the critique of their own system by attacking something else (usually your worldview). This is a textbook red herring.
Why it fails:
Pointing out perceived flaws in someone else’s view does nothing to solve the internal problem of your own. Every worldview must be evaluated on its own terms.
2. Moral Outrage
Example:
Person A: “Without an objective standard, moral claims are just preferences.”
Person B: “Are you saying racism is just a preference?! That’s disgusting!”
What’s happening:
Emotional reaction is used to override rational critique. But outrage isn’t an argument.
Why it fails:
Emotions might be genuine, but they don’t answer the underlying question. If morality is subjective, no one can say something is truly wrong. And that includes racism. If that conclusion is unacceptable (as it should be), it’s time to revise the worldview—not shout louder.
3. Mockery and Dismissal
Example:
“That’s just blind faith nonsense.”
“Only uneducated people believe that.”
What’s happening:
This is an ad hominem, which is to attack the person or group instead of the argument. It shuts down discussion by ridicule rather than reason.
Why it fails:
Mockery doesn’t refute anything. It reveals intellectual insecurity and a refusal to engage with real arguments. Ironically, it often hides the fact that the mocker has no substantial response.
4. Appeal to Mystery (Without Justification)
Example:
“Sure, that’s a contradiction, but life is just full of paradoxes.”
“You’re being too logical—some things are just beyond reason.”
What’s happening:
This tactic uses mystery as a smokescreen to cover inconsistency or irrationality.
Why it fails:
While the Christian worldview allows for mystery where revelation ends, mystery is not a license for contradiction. Appeals to mystery must come after establishing a coherent foundation—not as an escape hatch when that foundation crumbles.
5. Equivocation (Redefining Terms Mid-Argument)
Example:
Person A: “You say truth is relative, but then claim certain things are wrong for everyone.”
Person B: “Well, I meant truth is personally meaningful, not absolute in a rigid way.”
What’s happening:
This is equivocation—changing the definition of a key word to dodge the implications of the original claim.
Why it fails:
Meaningful arguments depend on stable terms. Shifting definitions midstream is deceptive and avoids accountability.
6. Vague Spiritualism or “Everyone Has Their Truth”
Example:
“That may be your truth, but it’s not mine.”
“Truth is subjective—it’s all about the journey.”
What’s happening:
This tactic sidesteps truth claims by relativizing everything. But it’s self-defeating.
Why it fails:
To say “truth is relative” is to make an absolute claim. If all truth is subjective, that statement itself is just one person’s opinion and has no authority over others. Relativism collapses in on itself.
7. The “Burden of Proof” Shuffle
Example:
Person A: “Atheism provides no basis for objective morality.”
Person B: “Well, prove that God exists first!”
What’s happening:
This is a shifting of the burden of proof to avoid defending one’s own view.
Why it fails:
Anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof. If an atheist claims that morality exists or that human life has objective value, they must justify that claim from their worldview, not demand a theist justify theirs first.
8. Overconfidence or Intimidation
Example:
“I’ve read every argument there is, and this one’s been refuted a thousand times.”
“You clearly don’t understand how philosophy really works.”
What’s happening:
This is an appeal to authority, status, or experience rather than to actual reasoning.
Why it fails:
Dismissive confidence is often a bluff. If someone can’t articulate why an argument fails—clearly and logically—then it hasn’t been refuted. Authority doesn’t equal truth.
Why This Matters
When someone dodges the real issue, it’s often because their worldview can’t bear the weight of scrutiny. These tactics aren’t just bad debate habits—they’re signs of deeper problems:
- A refusal to face consequences
- A lack of intellectual foundation
- A heart that loves autonomy more than truth
As apologists, we must learn to spot these tactics, expose them graciously, and redirect the conversation to the root issue. People don’t just need better arguments, they need worldviews that can account for truth, logic, morality, and meaning.
And those can only be found in the God who is Truth Himself.