Ad Hominem.

[Admin]

Ad-Hominem

Ad Hominem arguments seek to discredit a claim by attacking the person making the claim, rather than the claim itself.

There are several types of ad-hominem argument.

[Admin]

Ad-Hominem Circumstantial

"A" makes a claim, but it is in "A"'s interests to claim it, therefore it is false.

A's circumstances are represented as having a bearing on the validity of the claim.

The fact that "A" has an interest in making the claim does not make it false.

Example:

Defence minister: "we need to increase the defence budget by 12% to ensure national security".

Opponent: "Well you would say that, wouldn't you?"

Just because the person making the claim is the defence minister, does not mean that he's wrong.

[Admin]

Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque (you too). Sometimes classed as hypocrisy.

A claim is made out to be false because:


it is inconsistent with something else a the claimant has said;
the claim is inconsistent with the claimant's known actions.


It takes the general form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

Example:

Parent: Don't smoke; it's bad for you.

Teenager: Well you smoke, why should I listen to you?


The fact that previous claims or actions do not match the current claim may or may not be hypocrisy, but it is not evidence either for or against the claim being made.

[Admin]

Ad-hominem (abusive).

This is where an opponent attacks the arguer rather than their claim, often with insults. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.

People who cannot defend their argument or answer a pertinent question often use the ad hominem abusive. It is simply a case of: Don’t like the message? Then shoot the messenger.

Example:

You have claimed that Colin Fry doesn't really talk to the dead, but how can we believe what a close-minded skeptic says?


If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers' ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men."
--Arnold Schwarzenegger (2004, referring to members of the California legislature)


The ad-hominem abusive is frequently used on forums!!

[Admin]

Poisoning the Well

This is where a person attempts to bias people's opinions against his opponent by supplying unfavourable information about them.

It takes the general form:


Unfavourable information is presented against the opponent, which may be true or false;
Therefore anything the opponent claims is false.


Examples:

1. "I'd like to talk for 5 minutes about the need for increasing social welfare payments before handing you over to my fascist opponent".

2. "Welcome to our message board. Feel free to join in. We are a friendly bunch so feel free to talk about anything. Just watch out for our resident nutter PosterX".

[Admin]

Style over Substance

This is where the presentation of an argument is used to decide on the validity of the argument.

Spelling mistakes, grammar, punctuation, or general style of the argument are pounced upon to attack the claimant.

It has the general form:


The claimant has presented an argument in an untidy fashion;
therefore, their argument is invalid.


Important: Just because something is attractive does not make it right.

Interestingly, it works in reverse. Someone who has little substance can be taken seriously by adding flair, panache and elegance to how they present themselves.

It can be argued that someone who cannot spell properly or use punctuation correctly is less likely to be able to put a cohesive argument forward. That is undoubtedly true, but an argument is not necessarily false just because it is not presented well.

This one shows up on message boards where people mock others' spellings etc. and disregarding what they're actually saying.