拉丁语termumum baculum意为“坚持论证”。如果一个人拒绝接受所提供的结论，那么当他人对他人进行身体或心理暴力的暗示或明确威胁时，就会出现这种谬误。只要声称接受结论或想法会导致灾难，毁灭或伤害，它也会发生。您可以将论证广告视为具有这种形式：产生或暗示某种暴力威胁。因此，应该接受结论。如果这种威胁在逻辑上与结论有关，或者这种威胁更有可能使结论的真值得到，那将是非常不寻常的。当然，应该在理性原因和审慎理由之间作出区分。没有任何谬论，包括上诉力量，可以给出合理的理由来相信结论。但是，这一点可能会给出谨慎的行动理由。如果威胁是可信的并且足够糟糕，那么它可能会提供一个理由，就好像你相信它一样。在孩子们听到这样的谬论更为常见，例如当一个人说“如果你不同意这个节目是最好的，我会打你的！”不幸的是，这种谬论不仅限于儿童。以下是我们有时会在论证中使用武力的一些方式：你应该相信上帝存在，因为如果你不这样做，当你死的时候，你将受到审判，上帝会把你送到地狱永恒。你不想在地狱中遭受折磨，对吗？如果不相信，相信上帝比不相信更安全。这是Pascal’s Wager的简化形式，这是一些基督徒经常听到的论点。只是因为有人说如果我们不相信它，那么上帝就不会再存在了，那么我们最终会受到伤害。同样地，对上帝的信仰不会因为我们害怕下地狱而变得更加理性。通过诉诸我们对痛苦的恐惧和我们避免痛苦的愿望，上述论点正在犯下一种相关的谬误。
The Latin termumum baculum means “persistence argument.” If a person refuses to accept the conclusions provided, this fallacy occurs when someone else makes a physical or psychological threat or threat to others. It also happens as long as it claims to accept a conclusion or an idea that would lead to disaster, destruction or injury. You can think of an ad for a manifestation in this form: creating or suggesting a threat of violence. Therefore, conclusions should be accepted. It would be very unusual if the threat was logically related to the conclusion, or if the threat was more likely to give the true value of the conclusion. Of course, a distinction should be made between rational and prudent reasons. There is no paradox, including the power of appeal, that can give reasonable grounds to believe in conclusions. However, this may give a cautious reason for action. If the threat is credible and bad enough, it may provide a reason as if you believe it. It is more common for children to hear such public opinion, such as when a person says “If you disagree with this program is the best, I will hit you!” Unfortunately, this paradox is not limited to children. Here are some ways we sometimes use force in arguments: you should believe in God, because if you don’t, when you die, you will be judged, and God will send you to hell forever. You don’t want to suffer in hell, right? If you don’t believe it, believe that God is safer than not. This is a simplified form of Pascal’s Wager, something that Christians often hear. Just because someone said that if we don’t believe it, then God won’t exist anymore, then we will end up hurting. In the same way, the belief in God will not become more rational because we are afraid of going to hell. By resorting to our fear of suffering and our desire to avoid suffering, the above argument is making a related fallacy.