Debate Now Okay, let's talk about ad hominem.

[Foxfyre]

IMO, the odd numbered sentences in the poll are not ad hominem. All the even numbered sentences are.

NOTE: The poll options are for example only and are NOT topics to be discussed other than as examples of ad hominem or why they are not.​

Since the structured discussion forum gives the OP license to make up to three rules for conduct of the discussion, a 'no ad hominem' rule is often one of those three rules. C_K has guaranteed that the OP's rules will be enforced in this forum, but IMO the ad hominem issue is often poorly understood or not understood at all, and this makes it difficult for the mods to enforce. And I'm sure they are weary of fielding reports of ad hominem that are not ad hominem.

So okay, let's see if we can't clarify and understand what ad hominem actually is.

Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.

There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle. . . .
Ad Hominem - Examples and Definition of Ad Hominem​

And obviously, to me anyway, ad hominem is often inadvertent and the person doesn't even realize he/she is engaging in it. But it also is often used in lieu of the direct personal insult to indirectly attack another member and/or intentionally to derail a thread or discussion.

To evaluate whether a statement is or is not ad hominem, all we have to do is ask ourselves this question:

Are we addressing the person's argument? Or are we addressing the character, wishes, hopes, wants, intention, character flaws, attributes etc. of the person in making the argument?

Ad hominem is different from personal insult in that ad hominem suggests motive or intent or assigns attributes to the person. Personal insult directly attacks the person.

Important: Criticizing a person's argument is neither ad hominem or personal insult in itself.

Not ad hominem or personal insult: You are wrong that XXX is not important for national security.

Ad hominem: You don't support national security.

Personal insult: You are a peacenik. You are a bleeding heart liberal.​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominem or personal insults. (Yes I know this is a weird rule to include for this particular topic. )

2. Stay on topic and if examples of ad hominem or personal insults are posted by members, understand that such are examples only and are not an invitation to discuss whatever other topics are used for the examples. Please appreciate the spirit of this request and don't use it as a means to take shots at other members.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion but if you use links to reinforce or support your argument, these must be prefaced by a short summary of the argument you are making in your own words and what we will learn if we use the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you agree with the definition of ad hominem as presented in this OP? Do you agree that ad hominem is used to undermine the person instead of the argument he/she is making and/or to derail the discussion? Do you think most members understand the difference between ad hominem and personal insults?

 

[HenryBHough]

Yes
Yes
Not so much not understanding as not giving a shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes
Yes
Not so much not understanding as not giving a shit.

Well is it way up at the top of things most important to me? No. But do I very much appreciate people being able to discuss a topic instead of almost ALWAYS turning it into thinly veiled or blatant ad hominem or personal insults that generally dissolve the thread into a food fight? Yes.

Would I enjoy a culture at USMB in which childish or otherwise immature or just plain disagreeable people could not easily engage in tactics to disrupt a discussion and/or derail a thread? Yes.

I do enjoy a spirited and intelligent discussion on an interesting or important topic. And they are damn hard to come by these days. But I don't have 'eternal optimist' in my sig line for nothing.

 

[Pogo]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only 4 and 6 can be construed as actual ad hominem fallacies.

2 and 8 are hasty generalization fallacies.

As for 10, if someone indeed lied about something, that also wouldn't be an ad hominem fallacy, since the argument is invalid as a consequence of the lie.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit ...

If you stretch it, #6 could be considered an ad hom attack.

None of the others.

 

[Pogo]

I think your link is deeply flawed btw. Just to take its first two examples:

1. Just look at this common example.

“How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying your steak?”

This clearly shows how a person is attacked instead of being addressed for or against his argument.


2. A classic example of ad hominem fallacy is given below:

A: “All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn’t a murderer, and so can’t be a criminal.”
B: “Well, you’re a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument.”​

#2 qualifies as ad hom ("you're a thief and a criminal) --- unless it is in fact, factual, in which case it does not.
But #1, not at all. The argument there is Double Standard or hypocrisy. But if the subject has indeed argued vegetarianism and is indeed enjoying steak, it's simply a statement of fact. To exist as ad hom it would have to say something like,

"Only an idiot would argue for vegetarianism while enjoying a steak”

 

[Foxfyre]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person(s) you are quoting or referencing. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

 

[Pogo]

Only 4 and 6 can be construed as actual ad hominem fallacies.

2 and 8 are hasty generalization fallacies.

As for 10, if someone indeed lied about something, that also wouldn't be an ad hominem fallacy, since the argument is invalid as a consequence of the lie.

I see 4 and 6 as putting words in another's mouth, i.e. Strawman.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only 4 and 6 can be construed as actual ad hominem fallacies.

2 and 8 are hasty generalization fallacies.

As for 10, if someone indeed lied about something, that also wouldn't be an ad hominem fallacy, since the argument is invalid as a consequence of the lie.

Explain please how all the examples provided in the even number statements do not apply to the definition for ad hominem provided in the OP.

 

[Pogo]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person you are quoting. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor​

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com​

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info​

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki​

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only 4 and 6 can be construed as actual ad hominem fallacies.

2 and 8 are hasty generalization fallacies.

As for 10, if someone indeed lied about something, that also wouldn't be an ad hominem fallacy, since the argument is invalid as a consequence of the lie.

I see 4 and 6 as putting words in another's mouth, i.e. Strawman.

As for 10, if someone indeed lied about something, that also wouldn't be an ad hominem fallacy, since the argument is invalid as a consequence of the lie.[/QUOTE]

I see 4 and 6 as putting words in another's mouth, i.e. Strawman.[/QUOTE]

No #4 and #6 are not putting words into somebody's mouth. They do draw assumptions about a person not in evidence within the argument.

Putting words into somebody's mouth is not ad hominem but does constitute a form of strawman in a malicious manner.

Straw man is building a different or separate target into the argument that is easier to attack than the one being argued. It is a different technique from ad hominem.

Red herring is including something into the argument unrelated and irrelevent to the subject being argued.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person you are quoting. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit ...

If you stretch it, #6 could be considered an ad hom attack.

None of the others.

Please explain how the other even numbered statements are substantially different in effect from #6.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An ad hominem fallacy is to attack the individual making the argument, not the argument itself; by vilifying the advocate of the argument, the attacker hopes to dissuade others from considering an otherwise valid argument. Indeed, the attacker likely realizes that his opponent’s argument is valid and he has no way to win the debate.

A better question would be, does the following exchange qualify as an ad hominem fallacy:

Argument being made: “Blacks are not human and should be shot on sight”

Response: “You're a racist pig.”

Is the response an ad hominem fallacy, can the fallacy occur if the original premise of the argument is not valid, that blacks are not human, and must one be compelled to engage in good faith in a debate when the premise of the argument is so comprehensively flawed?

 

[Pogo]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person you are quoting. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person you are quoting. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

 

[Pogo]

An ad hominem fallacy is to attack the individual making the argument, not the argument itself; by vilifying the advocate of the argument, the attacker hopes to dissuade others from considering an otherwise valid argument. Indeed, the attacker likely realizes that his opponent’s argument is valid and he has no way to win the debate.

I agree with that definition, but I wouldn't necessarily hold the causation to be true. In a lot of cases on this board I sense that the adversary hasn't even considered the argument and has taken the lazy way out.

I couldn't really follow the question in the second part of the post.

 

[Pogo]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person you are quoting. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^