The Unbeatable Force Argument

This paper aims to describe and formalize the Unbeatable Force Argument as a mode of reasoning that imparts an appearance of inevitability or invulnerability to a phenomenon or entity whose power is perceived as insurmountable. First, its philosophical roots are explored in the thought of Thomas Hobbes, particularly in Leviathan, where the notion of an omnipotent authority plays a central role in shaping subjects’ submission and obedience. The argument that gives the study its name is then introduced and formalized, allowing it to be approached as a case of composite inference, in which an initial abductive step leads to the hypothesis of invincibility, which is then developed deductively to conclude in the inevitability of submission. The analysis is further complemented by considerations drawn from material, epistemic, and dialectical/rhetorical approaches to fallacies, in order to examine the conditions under which the argument may turn into one. This allows for an exploration of its manifestation across different forms of argumentation and discourse, particularly its impact on the formation of structures of power and control.