Go back
Argumentum Ad Hominem ...... ?

Argumentum Ad Hominem ...... ?

Debates

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
25 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm


Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Is insulting an opponent permitted in debates ?

Is insulting an opponent a violation of the ToS ?

DoctorScribbles
BWA Soldier

Tha Brotha Hood

Joined
13 Dec 04
Moves
49088
Clock
25 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Is insulting an opponent permitted in debates ?

Is insulting an opponent a violation of the ToS ?
Is failing to affirm the validity of a syllogism permitted in debates?

Isn't that more harmful than the occasional jab?

h

Cosmos

Joined
21 Jan 04
Moves
11184
Clock
25 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

d

Joined
12 Jun 05
Moves
14671
Clock
26 Sep 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

As I've said elsewhere, it's an argument of the form:

x because who cuts your hair, the council?

(Aggressive pointing at your interlocutor can make this a more effective argument, I find.)

Bosse de Nage
Zellulärer Automat

Spiel des Lebens

Joined
27 Jan 05
Moves
90892
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dottewell
x because who cuts your hair, the council?
Which philosopher deserved this put-down the most?

I like this ad hominem: "Jean-Paul Sartre was a boss-eyed get" (Jarvis Cocker).

X
Cancerous Bus Crash

p^2.sin(phi)

Joined
06 Sep 04
Moves
25076
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm


Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religio ...[text shortened]... nsulting an opponent permitted in debates ?

Is insulting an opponent a violation of the ToS ?
You smell.

U
All Bark, No Bite

Playing percussion

Joined
13 Jul 05
Moves
13279
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You smell.
You are a sarcastic know-it-all

j

CA, USA

Joined
06 Dec 02
Moves
1182
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

"Is insulting an opponent permitted in debates ?"
.........................................
On this site .. yes, obviously. Selective "moderation" insures this.
In a formal debate personal insults would count against you and your ability to argue your case. You'd be laughed off the podium and dismissed from your debating team.
This particular forum is mis-named, it should be called the Flame Wars for Children .. that's basicly what it is.
The mods (obviously) approve or it wouldn't be happening at the rate it is.
................................
"Is insulting an opponent a violation of the ToS ?"
........................................
I haven't read the ToS but if it is, it isn't enforced ... therefore, by tacit agreement, YES, personal insults are not only allowed .. but encouraged. I simple read of the "gay marriage" thread will prove this point, many, many personal insults .. no moderation at all.
Perhaps the mods are gay and protecting their own POV .. or maybe they just don't care, or maybe if you buy a membership you get "insulting privilages" with it.
Regardless .. yes, insults are definitly allowed on this forum .. at least for some selected "members."
.........................
Without moderation an internet forum will seek it's own level of discourse. A lot of children like that .. it's a chance to "play" (re: fukwith) with the adults without being slapped down.
Great fun ...
If you're 14 yrs old.

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm


Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religio ...[text shortened]... nsulting an opponent permitted in debates ?

Is insulting an opponent a violation of the ToS ?
I am so tired of your occasional tirades, Ivanhoe.

You recently had a hissy-fit in the forums, spouting all
manner of insult and inappropriate language.

Get off your high horse, you hypocrite.

Nemesio

X

Ephesus

Joined
23 Sep 03
Moves
224
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

"Is failing to affirm the validity of a syllogism permitted in debates? "
Lol.... pretty good there.

And you know, an ad hominen would appear to assume that an argument is being advanced.

BigDogg
Secret RHP coder

on the payroll

Joined
26 Nov 04
Moves
155080
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by jammer
"Is insulting an opponent permitted in debates ?"
.........................................
On this site .. yes, obviously. Selective "moderation" insures this.
In a formal debate personal insults would count against you and your ability to argue your case. You'd be laughed off the podium and dismissed from your debating team.
This particular forum i ...[text shortened]... (re: fukwith) with the adults without being slapped down.
Great fun ...
If you're 14 yrs old.
I'm amazed that people will go into a thread about a controversial topic (like gay marriage) and expect it to be some orderly debate with strict rules.

Here's a thought. You say insults aren't allowed in formal debates. Why? Probably because they are a weak form of argument, or no argument at all. So there you have it. A weak argument should be easily dismissed or ignored, right?

Don't forget that insults are subjective. People decide what insults them and what does not. You said that 'perhaps the mods are gay...', and probably meant no offense, but a mod could easily take offense at such a comment. In fact, I could claim that your post is full of insults - towards both the mods and the debaters on the site. You even snuck in an obscene word for good measure. You're fitting into the scene nicely.

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
26 Sep 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

.
What I am proposing is the serious implementation of the RHP ToS for EVERYBODY, including myself.


"You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; ... "

DoctorScribbles
BWA Soldier

Tha Brotha Hood

Joined
13 Dec 04
Moves
49088
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.
What I am proposing is the serious implementation of the RHP ToS for EVERYBODY, including myself.


"You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; ... "
Why don't you stop harassing us with your silly ideas?

BigDogg
Secret RHP coder

on the payroll

Joined
26 Nov 04
Moves
155080
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.
What I am proposing is the serious implementation of the RHP ToS for EVERYBODY, including myself.


"You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; ... "
The TOS is written in lawyerese. The main purpose is to cover the site legally. If all posts that fell under any of these categories were moderated, then moderation would be a full-time job.

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

I wonder also if ivanhoe has bothered to note this portions of the TOS (also in paragraph 6):

You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.

We're sick of hearing it ivanhoe, please, plug yourself up or something, your current bout of forum diahorrea is making a really foul stench on these forums.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.