Yes, it is valid.

It is not valid in every situation of course- for instance, less harsh punishments for sex between consenting minors will not bring about the fall of society. However, for personal, internal battles, we've all had it happen.

"I'll skip jogging, just this once."

"I'll stay up late, just this once."

"I'll have meaningless sex, just this once."

"I'll skip church, just this once."

Obviously it's valid, given how effective New Years Resolutions are- not very! As a political strategy, it's a cop-out, but as a personal reality, not as much.

It's one of the weakest arguments, because it doesn't really contradict the validity of the opposing view. What it does is, it tries to invoke fear of a greater danger that is supposedly attached to the acceptance of the opposing view.

So you hear people saying "we don't want a social health care system because that is a slippery slope to communism", an argument that doesn't really dispute the merits of the social health care, it simply attaches it to the greater danger of communism.

In simple terms, the "slippery slope" argument is no different to scare mongering.

Why am I on this side of the debate? Because I actually thought of one case where this argument is actually valid: when an action creates a right that cannot be afforded by everyone.

You arrive 5 minutes late in your classroom and your teacher tells you that you can't come in because you are late. You plead with the teacher to forgive you and allow you to attend class. But the teacher says "if I allow you then I'm putting myself in a slippery slope of having to allow everyone else when they arrive late". Which would disrupt the order in the classroom. The argument is still weak in the sense that it relies on the possibility of all the other students exploiting the teacher's decision. But nevertheless, it's still a valid argument because in theory, all the other students should be allowed in the classroom when they are late.

I think the slippery slope argument is valid if it advances my agenda, otherwise, no, it's not valid. But that's just me ;)

It is valid if there is actually a decent chance that one event will, eventually, lead to another. If there is true logic behind it, and not just panic and exaggerated risks, then yes, it's valid.

Logical fallacies apply to logical arguments. The slippery slope can be valid.

If you've ever played the game Mouse Trap, you know how a slippery slope can be valid. If it wasn't, then there's no way the guy on the diving board could set off the mouse trap.

Many arguments already have their own problem and don't need a slippery slope. If they don't have a problem, then they DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. The idea that one thing will lead to another is stupid.

Universal Healthcare - Stop with the commie crap. Yes, it is socialist, but it's main problem is that it constricts innovation in the field of medicine and has the same people who waited a week to save New Orleans to give you very important surgery. LOLGOODJOB!

Guns - Taking away guns takes away your ability to protect yourself. Although, no one actually makes a slippery slope argument for gun rights. They want their guns, end of story.

Abortion - The main argument from Feminazis is that they'll end up losing their right to vote. Way to lose support, dumb cunts. Abortion should be supported by the fact that fetuses aren't sentient beings. they're just fetuses.

and so on. If a slippery slope is your own argument, you need to look at your fuckin' argument.

I always hated the "well if your friends jumped off a cliff would you!?" argument.[parents use it a lot] It's usually not a very good argument.

Slipper slope usually isn't a good way to win a debate. But just because you are losing a debate doesn't mean you are wrong.

But sometimes it works.

I could argue that if the media has so much power over the young people in america[it does] what is to stop propaganda from happening?

Sorry, what does "slippery slope argument" mean?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''