The following argument is unsound:

1. Obama is president.
2. Therefore, libertarianism is true.

By pointing out that the argument is unsound, I don’t thereby reveal that I’m secretly a fascist. I don’t thereby declare that libertarianism is false. I just explain that the argument doesn’t succeed in establishing its conclusion.

The following argument begs the question, if used against atheists.

1. Everything the Bible says is true.
2. The Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
3. Therefore, Jesus is the son of God.

By pointing out the argument begs the question, I don’t thereby dispute the conclusion or reject Christ. Rather, I just mean to say that the argument assumes the thing being disputed.

Well, yeah, duh, that’s obvious. But even though everyone knows in the abstract that this is obvious, I frequently see exchanges among libertarians that go as follows:

Libertarian J: Hans Hermann-Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” argument is among the silliest philosophy arguments I’ve ever seen, and when I say that, I mean to include essays I gave failing grades back when I was TAing for David Chalmers.

Libertarian S: Really? You think that? So, you must be a communist then.

Libertarian J: No, I just mean that I think it’s a terrible argument for its conclusion. I’m not disputing the conclusion. I’m just saying that that argument doesn’t come close to establishing its conclusion.

Libertarian S: Why do you want to aggress against innocent people!

The exchange above is of course fictional.