A Doublespeak Argument is the name given to an argument, or debate, where one or more sides seems to be using reasonings that are not the real reasonings for that side. This is usually alleged to have been done because the real reasonings may be offensive in some way, and that side feels that its other reasonings will be strong enough to win the debate.
Alleged examples:
For example, some consider the fair use argument (where one should be allowed to copy software or music for personal use) in debates for and against file sharing programs to be a doublespeak argument. Although the principle of fair use might be correct, critics argue that the real reason why people want to be able to copy and share music unhindered is to avoid having to pay for it.
Another example is in the "financial privacy" debate. One side, those who argue for what they call "financial privacy", do not want their financial information shared amongst financial institutions and non-financial institutions due mostly to security and identity theft risk issues. However, the main funding for these financial privacy groups comes from financial institutions who only sell a single product. Those who call this argument doublespeak feel that the real issue is that the single product financial service company feels threatened by companies which have merged to monopolize the financial services industry. The real argument is that the network effect caused by this type of vertical merger is too unfair.
