• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A primer on Ad Hominem

Again, asserting yes or no would be the conclusion of the argument you would make. This would not be ad hominem, on your part.

Then, the debate around your argument and conclusion would focus on the truth of your premises.

Anyone can use valid logic to argue anything at all. I assume you would use valid logic in your argument.
Yes.
So given the undeniable truth of my premises what is your assertion? Should someone be elected to the US Senate, H of R, or Presidency if he/she has trouble understanding spoken words?
Shirley you can assert your opinion. Any truly honest partisan could.
 
You coulda just answered "no".
Sure. Or I could've written a 300-word essay full of ad hominins, to exemplify the subject... but lazy.
 
OK. I wouldn't characterize my message like that (I don't know that I've ever written a petulant or trolling message), but it's not a big deal. It's your thread, so if you found it disruptive, I'll honor that.
Meh, I don't report people regardless. Just a heads up. It didn't bother me. Just hoping to avoid pages of that.
 
Last edited:
So given the undeniable truth of my premises what is your assertion?
As I said, your premises would be up for debate. Asserting the fact that one is currently having some problems with recognizing words then means that person is unfit for office is a premise up for debate. As we have already established whether or not it's ad hominem, the discussion of your argument is done in this thread. Perhaps you could start a thread about it.
 
As I said, your premises would be up for debate. Asserting the fact that one is currently having some problems with recognizing words then means that person is unfit for office is a premise up for debate. As we have already established whether or not it's ad hominem, the discussion of your argument is done in this thread. Perhaps you could start a thread about it.
Oh no. It's perfect for this thread.

Claiming Fetterman is such a mess that he can't decipher spoken words and he's got something huge growing on his neck so he might have Madelung's disease would certainly be an ad hominem comment. But adding that he's unfit for office for those reasons would be an appropriate conclusion, doncha think?

So ... ad hominem comments aren't usually made in isolation. Think about it. What can't be considered ad hominem in the political world? When not explicitly stated, they require the reader to evaluate the degree they apply to the topic introduced or responded to by the writer.
The reader, by not taking that step and dismissing an ad hominem comment, is kind of like a reader dismissing a comment because they disapprove of the source used by the writer as their support. You've seen it, I'm sure. It can indicate weakness of an argument and the need to withdraw from the discussion.

There are other approaches that also indicate the desire to withdraw. Any come immediately to mind?
 
Oh no. It's perfect for this thread.

Claiming Fetterman is such a mess that he can't decipher spoken words and he's got something huge growing on his neck so he might have Madelung's disease would certainly be an ad hominem comment. But adding that he's unfit for office for those reasons would be an appropriate conclusion, doncha think?

So ... ad hominem comments aren't usually made in isolation. Think about it. What can't be considered ad hominem in the political world? When not explicitly stated, they require the reader to evaluate the degree they apply to the topic introduced or responded to by the writer.
The reader, by not taking that step and dismissing an ad hominem comment, is kind of like a reader dismissing a comment because they disapprove of the source used by the writer as their support. You've seen it, I'm sure. It can indicate weakness of an argument and the need to withdraw from the discussion.

There are other approaches that also indicate the desire to withdraw. Any come immediately to mind?
The argument is not ad hominem. That's where thse discussion of it in this thread ends. Whether your conclusion is "appropriate" is a different discussion.

Back on topic...
 
You're obviously a genius. I'm outmatched.

(Not an ad hominem... did you notice?)
Better not be cuz I think we're supposed to believe that the use of an ad hominem negates the value in an argument, whether the argument is explicit or implied.
Or something.
 
The argument is not ad hominem. That's where thse discussion of it in this thread ends. Whether your conclusion is "appropriate" is a different discussion.

Back on topic...
The argument isn't ad hominem but the reasoning that led to the ad hominem can, and typically does, contribute to the rationale behind the argument.
Don't automatically dismiss an ad hominem that contributed to forming the argument (like is done in my example of a reader's approved "source").
 
The argument isn't ad hominem but the reasoning that led to the ad hominem can, and typically does, contribute to the rationale behind the argument.
Don't automatically dismiss an ad hominem that contributed to forming the argument (like is done in my example of a reader's approved "source").
Then that would not be ad hominem...
 
It's certainly snarky...
Yeah, I agree. I do that sometimes in exchange for snark. Just a way to make the day more interesting.
 
Better not be cuz I think we're supposed to believe that the use of an ad hominem negates the value in an argument, whether the argument is explicit or implied.
Or something.
Yeah. It's complicated. Language is liquid, so we're trying to use a liquid to nail down a liquid. But it can be entertaining.
 
Then that would not be ad hominem...
Sure it would.
If, on a Fetterman-health thread, I said that I hope Fetterman's new head is better than his old one ... would that be ad hominem?
 
Sure it would.
If, on a Fetterman-health thread, I said that I hope Fetterman's new head is better than his old one ... would that be ad hominem?
It's not really that hard... An attack against the argument is not an Ad Hom... An attack against the one making the argument IS an Ad Hom.
 
It's not really that hard... An attack against the argument is not an Ad Hom... An attack against the one making the argument IS an Ad Hom.
I hope Fetterman's new head is better than his old one ... is that ad hominem?
 
Sure it would.
If, on a Fetterman-health thread, I said that I hope Fetterman's new head is better than his old one ... would that be ad hominem?
It was not ad hominem.

And neither is this. ^^ A lot of people make this error. Personal insults are not necessarily ad hominem.
 
It's unconnected to an argument, so it's just an insult.

It was not ad hominem.

And neither is this. ^^ A lot of people make this error. Personal insults are not necessarily ad hominem.
Regarding ad hominems, you're demonstrating what I earlier meant by "... When not explicitly stated, they require the reader to evaluate the degree they apply to the topic introduced or responded to by the writer."
Referring to "Fetterman's new head" had a purpose other than an insult.
So, the argument wasn't explicitly stated ... but there was one.
 
Regarding ad hominems, you're demonstrating what I earlier meant by "... When not explicitly stated, they require the reader to evaluate the degree they apply to the topic introduced or responded to by the writer."
Referring to "Fetterman's new head" had a purpose other than an insult.
So, the argument wasn't explicitly stated ... but there was one.
I think you are stretching the meaning of the word "argument" to it's breaking point here...
 
Referring to "Fetterman's new head" had a purpose other than an insult.
In your head, maybe. State it in a different context, and it will be different. An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem.
 
I think you are stretching the meaning of the word "argument" to it's breaking point here...
In your head, maybe. State it in a different context, and it will be different. An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem.
The argument is about the effect of Fetterman's health problems on his campaign. The comment was implicitly relevant to that.
The point is that what might appear to be an ad hominem attack can be a support for an argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom