The fallacy called kafkatrapping doesn’t represent an argument as much as it represents an accusation. Named after the famous Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which the main character is accused of an unknown crime. The only evidence is his denial of guilt.
The fallacy occurs not with the accusation but with the verdict. Accusing someone of something is not that dangerous, the accused has a chance to defend himself or ignore the accusation. Supporting the accusation with the denial of guilt by the accused is a fallacious argument. Therefore, the fallacy occurs.
Although kafkatrapping is absurd, it happens more than one might think in today’s society. As the civilization becomes more aware of the political, sex and racial issues, kafkatrapping is quite common. The instant someone tries to deny the accusations of sexism or racism, the accusers conclude that the person is guilty. The whole point of Kafka’s novel is to note this absurdity.
Example 1:
Speaker A: “Eh, only homophobes say that kind of things”
Speaker B: “But I’m not a homophobe.”
Speaker A: “Ha, I knew it, you homophobic bastard.”
Example 2:
Speaker A: “I’m just saying that scientists haven’t always been right. Just look how often they change their mind.”
Speaker B: “Wow, then you believe the Earth is flat.”
Speaker A: “What? No, I don’t.”
Speaker B: “You’re denying it. Now I’m even more sure.”
Example 3:
Judge: “Mr. Goode, you’re accused of robbery? How do you plead?”
Mr. Goode: “Not guilty”
Judge to Prosecutor: “Do you offer any evidence for your accusations?”
Prosecutor: “He pleaded not guilty”
The foolishness of kafkatrapping is evident from the examples. The danger of this fallacy is the fact that it actually works. With kafkatrapping the accused is not given the chance to present evidence to the contrary. Although the argument is absurd, many fall for it. The best way to avoid this is neglecting to answer or point that the speaker is kafkatrapping.