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

[Statistikhengst]

​

...IMO, what makes Y ad hominem is the inference that it is a person's Republicanism prompting the argument rather than focusing on the merit of the argument itself. Whether or not the person is Republican might be the motive for the person holding the point of view he holds, but it still has nothing to do with the merit or lack thereof of that point made.

Again, though it often is, ad hominem does not have to be insulting, personally or otherwise. It only has to divert the focus of the discussion to the person or some personal characteristic of the person making the argument rather than dealing with the argument itself independent of what we might think of the person personally.

The bolded: questionable at best.

ad hominem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

I know of no attack on a person's character that is NOT an insult in some way. Can you show us one?

Sure. The illustration of "Of course you would say that - you are a Republican" is one that doesn't attack the person's character.

So, are you saying that is not an ad hominem or that the use of Republican in this case has absolutely no context at all?

 

[Foxfyre]

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

Again............. this is not ad hominem. It is a fallacy, but the fallacy is Hasty Generalization.

By your own definition it's not ad hom --- it refers in no way personally to the adversary making the counterpoint. It's subject (the body: "Republicans") is a third party.

Ad hom, being personal attack on the adversary hiim/herself, must by definition be delivered in the second person ("you"). What you have there is a "they".

It doesn't matter whether it is hasty generalization or because of some other dynamic that produces the ad hominem--it is ad hominem just the same. Can you think of any way a person could say "Republicans oppose health care" that can be supported as a statement of fact and/or does not infer something about the character of Republicans?

If I say Democrats oppose free speech and liberty, that also is ad homiinem.

And just because we refer to somebody in third person does not change the fact that something is ad hominem.

 

[Statistikhengst]

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

Again............. this is not ad hominem. It is a fallacy, but the fallacy is Hasty Generalization.

By your own definition it's not ad hom --- it refers in no way personally to the adversary making the counterpoint. It's subject (the body: "Republicans") is a third party.

Ad hom, being personal attack on the adversary hiim/herself, must by definition be delivered in the second person ("you"). What you have there is a "they".

It doesn't matter whether it is hasty generalization or because of some other dynamic that produces the ad hominem--it is ad hominem just the same. Can you think of any way a person could say "Republicans oppose health care" that can be supported as a statement of fact and/or does not infer something about the character of Republicans?

"Republicans oppose health care" could also be a statistical statement of fact...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Identifying a person's belief accurately in a non-demeaning way is simply not ad hom by the traditional dictionary definitions.

 

[Pogo]

#2 "Republicans oppose healthcare." This is ad hominem because it assumes something about Republicans that a) is not in evidence and b) is an intentionally ridiculous statement to assign a character trait to Republicans.

It is questionable that you think that #2 "Republicans oppose healthcare" is ad hominem because it is assuming that all Republicans oppose healthcare, and like you say, there are probably some Republicans that do support healthcare, but you didn't think #7 was Ad hominem when it says that "All Democrats supported that program" with no program being identified and just as easily understood (very hard to prove) that "all" Democrats would support any program.

I actually didn't think any of the 10 listed were actual "ad hominem" although some could be stretched as ad hominem by someone extra sensitive, but can you explain why #2 is and #7 is not?

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

No, no, a thousand times no. What you're describing above is blanket generalization.

• "'all Democrats supported that program"

.... is the equivalent of "Liberals always.... " or "Conservatives are all ..... " or "Blacks don't ......" --- it doesn't even matter what value we give the ellipsis, negative or positive -- it's a broad-brush statement and as such, a fallacy. Moreover the idea that "all Democrats supported that program" depending on context could certainly be uttered as a compliment. It would still be fallacious as generalization, but it's certainly not ad hom. And again -- third person.

Ad hom is not the only fallacy there is yanno. I still get the idea you're trying to shoehorn everything into it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, no, a thousand times no. What you're describing above is blanket generalization.

• "'all Democrats supported that program"

.... is the equivalent of "Liberals always.... " or "Conservatives are all ..... " or "Blacks don't ......" --- it doesn't even matter what value we give the ellipsis, negative or positive -- it's a broad-brush statement and as such, a fallacy. Moreover the idea that "all Democrats supported that program" depending on context could certainly be uttered as a compliment. It would still be fallacious as generalization, but it's certainly not ad hom. And again -- third person.

Ad hom is not the only fallacy there is yanno. I still get the idea you're trying to shoehorn everything into it.

 

[Foxfyre]

#2 "Republicans oppose healthcare." This is ad hominem because it assumes something about Republicans that a) is not in evidence and b) is an intentionally ridiculous statement to assign a character trait to Republicans.

It is questionable that you think that #2 "Republicans oppose healthcare" is ad hominem because it is assuming that all Republicans oppose healthcare, and like you say, there are probably some Republicans that do support healthcare, but you didn't think #7 was Ad hominem when it says that "All Democrats supported that program" with no program being identified and just as easily understood (very hard to prove) that "all" Democrats would support any program.

I actually didn't think any of the 10 listed were actual "ad hominem" although some could be stretched as ad hominem by someone extra sensitive, but can you explain why #2 is and #7 is not?

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

No, no, a thousand times no. What you're describing above is blanket generalization.

• "'all Democrats supported that program"

.... is the equivalent of "Liberals always.... " or "Conservatives are all ..... " or "Blacks don't ......" --- it doesn't even matter what value we give the ellipsis, negative or positive -- it's a broad-brush statement and as such, a fallacy. Moreover the idea that "all Democrats supported that program" depending on context could certainly be uttered as a compliment. It would still be fallacious as generalization, but it's certainly not ad hom. And again -- third person.

Ad hom is not the only fallacy there is yanno. I still get the idea you're trying to shoehorn everything into it.

Nope, not at all. And yes there are dozens of fallacies that we could be discussing and some of them do in fact overlap. This thread however is about ad hominem and not about other fallacies.

But please read the definition in the OP carefully--especailly the part I quoted. THAT is what we are discussing here. Refute it if you can, but until somebody gives me a good reason to believe that is not a good definition--one similar to what I have been using for a lot of decades now and have never steered my students wrong with it--then I will continued to believe that ad hominem is ANYTHING that diverts attention to or characterizes the person or persons making the argument or holding the opinion rather than the argument or opinion itself.

 

[Pogo]

It is questionable that you think that #2 "Republicans oppose healthcare" is ad hominem because it is assuming that all Republicans oppose healthcare, and like you say, there are probably some Republicans that do support healthcare, but you didn't think #7 was Ad hominem when it says that "All Democrats supported that program" with no program being identified and just as easily understood (very hard to prove) that "all" Democrats would support any program.

I actually didn't think any of the 10 listed were actual "ad hominem" although some could be stretched as ad hominem by someone extra sensitive, but can you explain why #2 is and #7 is not?

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

No, no, a thousand times no. What you're describing above is blanket generalization.

• "'all Democrats supported that program"

.... is the equivalent of "Liberals always.... " or "Conservatives are all ..... " or "Blacks don't ......" --- it doesn't even matter what value we give the ellipsis, negative or positive -- it's a broad-brush statement and as such, a fallacy. Moreover the idea that "all Democrats supported that program" depending on context could certainly be uttered as a compliment. It would still be fallacious as generalization, but it's certainly not ad hom. And again -- third person.

Ad hom is not the only fallacy there is yanno. I still get the idea you're trying to shoehorn everything into it.

Nope, not at all. And yes there are dozens of fallacies that we could be discussing and some of them do in fact overlap. This thread however is about ad hominem and not about other fallacies.

But please read the definition in the OP carefully--especailly the part I quoted. THAT is what we are discussing here. Refute it if you can, but until somebody gives me a good reason to believe that is not a good definition--one similar to what I have been using for a lot of decades now and have never steered my students wrong with it--then I will continued to believe that ad hominem is ANYTHING that diverts the discussion to the person making the argument or holding the opinion rather than the argument or opinion itself.

I've already read your OP's definition when I first posted here, and dismissed it as unreal. Everything after that has been reiteration of why it's unreal. By way of refuting it I also posted several competing definitions (as have others) that have unanimously disputed your chosen definition.

It seems to this observer you must be taking the translation "to the man" from the Latin, literally and without the context of the normal dynamics of any debate --- i.e. you seem to be proffering the view that "any reference to or about one's adversary, regardless of intent, is ad hom".

Addressing one's adversary directly is inevitable in an exchange of ideas, whether done so derogatorily or not, and whether on the topic or not. The mere fact that I may make reference to you personally while making a point, does not and cannot be, in and of itself, defined to constitute ad hominem. If it IS done so under the guise of purporting to refute your argument via character assassination -- that's ad hominem, or perhaps we must needs more correctly call it Argumentum ad hominem. But if it's not there for that purpose -- as in the first sentence of the paragraph above this one -- then it's not.

Matter of fact that sentence above is merely one more angle to understand your position, so to call it ad hominem would be absurd.

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

No, no, a thousand times no. What you're describing above is blanket generalization.

• "'all Democrats supported that program"

.... is the equivalent of "Liberals always.... " or "Conservatives are all ..... " or "Blacks don't ......" --- it doesn't even matter what value we give the ellipsis, negative or positive -- it's a broad-brush statement and as such, a fallacy. Moreover the idea that "all Democrats supported that program" depending on context could certainly be uttered as a compliment. It would still be fallacious as generalization, but it's certainly not ad hom. And again -- third person.

Ad hom is not the only fallacy there is yanno. I still get the idea you're trying to shoehorn everything into it.

Nope, not at all. And yes there are dozens of fallacies that we could be discussing and some of them do in fact overlap. This thread however is about ad hominem and not about other fallacies.

But please read the definition in the OP carefully--especailly the part I quoted. THAT is what we are discussing here. Refute it if you can, but until somebody gives me a good reason to believe that is not a good definition--one similar to what I have been using for a lot of decades now and have never steered my students wrong with it--then I will continued to believe that ad hominem is ANYTHING that diverts the discussion to the person making the argument or holding the opinion rather than the argument or opinion itself.

I've already read your OP's definition when I first posted here, and dismissed it as unreal. Everything after that has been reiteration of why it's unreal. By way of refuting it I also posted several competing definitions (as have others) that have unanimously disputed your chosen definition.

It seems to this observer you must be taking the translation "to the man" from the Latin, literally and without the context of the normal dynamics of any debate --- i.e. you seem to be proffering the view that "any reference to or about one's adversary, regardless of intent, is ad hom".

Addressing one's adversary directly is inevitable in an exchange of ideas, whether done so derogatorily or not, and whether on the topic or not. The mere fact that I may make reference to you personally while making a point, does not and cannot be, in and of itself, defined to constitute ad hominem. If it IS done so under the guise of purporting to refute your argument via character assassination -- that's ad hominem, or perhaps we must needs more correctly call it Argumentum ad hominem. But if it's not there for that purpose -- as in the first sentence of the paragraph above this one -- then it's not.

Matter of fact that sentence above is merely one more angle to understand your position, so to call it ad hominem would be absurd.

The only proper way to reference you opponent is via:

1. My opponent said. . . .(and then accurately and without embellishment repeat what he said.)

2. My opponent in the past took the position. . . .(and then accurately specify what the position was without exaggeration or omission of pertinent qualifiers.)

3. My opponent is a self professed Republican. For that reason I could assume that he would be more likely to take a position of. . . .

4. How do you support XXX when you said that you also support YYY?

In most cases though. we can focus directly on the argument or expressed statement itself and not have to reference the member who made it at all.

As for you dismissing the definition in the OP as 'unreal', that is your prerogative. I have used similar definitions to train formal debaters for a very long time and have yet to steer one of my 'students' wrong. And I do not believe that you have yet provided an argument that is better than the one I posted to define ad hominem.

Just posting different, short, more narrowly focused definitions simply is not a credible rebuttal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Posting traditional, accepted definitions of ad hom is not only acceptable but required to correct your inaccurate position.

 

[Mertex]

#2 "Republicans oppose healthcare." This is ad hominem because it assumes something about Republicans that a) is not in evidence and b) is an intentionally ridiculous statement to assign a character trait to Republicans.

It is questionable that you think that #2 "Republicans oppose healthcare" is ad hominem because it is assuming that all Republicans oppose healthcare, and like you say, there are probably some Republicans that do support healthcare, but you didn't think #7 was Ad hominem when it says that "All Democrats supported that program" with no program being identified and just as easily understood (very hard to prove) that "all" Democrats would support any program.

I actually didn't think any of the 10 listed were actual "ad hominem" although some could be stretched as ad hominem by someone extra sensitive, but can you explain why #2 is and #7 is not?

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

but, that is exactly what your poll said, and then you said it wasn't ad hominem.

#7 All the Democrats supported that program.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

Saying "all the Democrats voted for that program" in your context view of ad hominems would still be considered ad hominem because there are many Registered Democrats that don't vote. You could never prove that "all" Democrats voted for any program unless the number of Democratic votes matched the number of Registered Democrats. If you had said all Democratic Senators/Congressmen voted for the program, and it was a true statement, then (in your context view of ad hominems) it would not be ad hominem.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

I still wouldn't consider the second statement ad hominem, it is just a careless remark whose real meaning might be, "the candidate is so unelectable/undesirable that I don't think any Democrats would vote for him/her".

To me, an ad hominem is something more like a veiled insult. Someone saying Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate would not draw any emotion from me. Saying Dumocrats wouldn't vote for that candidate, would, in my opinion be considered an ad hominem

Ad hominem
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

#2 "Republicans oppose healthcare." This is ad hominem because it assumes something about Republicans that a) is not in evidence and b) is an intentionally ridiculous statement to assign a character trait to Republicans.

It is questionable that you think that #2 "Republicans oppose healthcare" is ad hominem because it is assuming that all Republicans oppose healthcare, and like you say, there are probably some Republicans that do support healthcare, but you didn't think #7 was Ad hominem when it says that "All Democrats supported that program" with no program being identified and just as easily understood (very hard to prove) that "all" Democrats would support any program.

I actually didn't think any of the 10 listed were actual "ad hominem" although some could be stretched as ad hominem by someone extra sensitive, but can you explain why #2 is and #7 is not?

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

but, that is exactly what your poll said, and then you said it wasn't ad hominem.

#7 All the Democrats supported that program.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

Saying "all the Democrats voted for that program" in your context view of ad hominems would still be considered ad hominem because there are many Registered Democrats that don't vote. You could never prove that "all" Democrats voted for any program unless the number of Democratic votes matched the number of Registered Democrats. If you had said all Democratic Senators/Congressmen voted for the program, and it was a true statement, then (in your context view of ad hominems) it would not be ad hominem.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

I still wouldn't consider the second statement ad hominem, it is just a careless remark whose real meaning might be, "the candidate is so unelectable/undesirable that I don't think any Democrats would vote for him/her".

To me, an ad hominem is something more like a veiled insult. Someone saying Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate would not draw any emotion from me. Saying Dumocrats wouldn't vote for that candidate, would, in my opinion be considered an ad hominem

Ad hominem
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Please go back

#2 "Republicans oppose healthcare." This is ad hominem because it assumes something about Republicans that a) is not in evidence and b) is an intentionally ridiculous statement to assign a character trait to Republicans.

It is questionable that you think that #2 "Republicans oppose healthcare" is ad hominem because it is assuming that all Republicans oppose healthcare, and like you say, there are probably some Republicans that do support healthcare, but you didn't think #7 was Ad hominem when it says that "All Democrats supported that program" with no program being identified and just as easily understood (very hard to prove) that "all" Democrats would support any program.

I actually didn't think any of the 10 listed were actual "ad hominem" although some could be stretched as ad hominem by someone extra sensitive, but can you explain why #2 is and #7 is not?

The difference is subtle but would be judged by a competent debate judge.

#2 is not making a statement of fact but is expressing an attribute of Republicanism. "All Republicans oppose healthcare" is an opinion about Republicans with no way to oppose it or confirm it.

#7 is making a statement that "All the Democrats supported that program" which if not true can easily be refuted by X and Y did not vote for that program. Or if there were no 'no' votes, then the statement is accurate without drawing any inference about the motives or attributes. of the Democrats. It is speaking of a specific program.

I should, however, have been more specific that I was referring to Democrats that would have the power to support or not support the program. It was intended to be similar to #1 in which all the Republicans with the power to support or oppose it did in fact oppose Obamacare.

Well, since you weren't specific, there is more reason for both #2 and #7 to be considered the same.

You can support a program without voting for it...as in a poll. So claiming that "all Democrats supported that program" would be as difficult to prove as #2 saying that All Republicans oppose healthcare.

Since you weren't specific in either case, both are impossible to oppose or confirm....yet you only thought the one about Republicans was ad hominem even if you then admit that if you were addressing Republicans in Congress, it would be possible to prove since all Congressmen voted against Obamacare. That would then disqualify it as ad hominem.

Yes, I should have been more specific. But in the context in which I intended the statement to relate:

If you say 'all Democrats supported that program' meaning literally all Democrats, then it is ad hominem because you can't possibly know that. You are assuming something about Democrats that cannot be substantiated.

but, that is exactly what your poll said, and then you said it wasn't ad hominem.

#7 All the Democrats supported that program.

But if you say "all the Democrats voted for that program" within the context of who did and who didn't vote for the program, that is not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that draw no conclusions about Democrats other than how they voted.

Saying "all the Democrats voted for that program" in your context view of ad hominems would still be considered ad hominem because there are many Registered Democrats that don't vote. You could never prove that "all" Democrats voted for any program unless the number of Democratic votes matched the number of Registered Democrats. If you had said all Democratic Senators/Congressmen voted for the program, and it was a true statement, then (in your context view of ad hominems) it would not be ad hominem.

You can say, I doubt many Democrats would vote for that candidate and that is not ad hominem. To say Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate is ad hominem.

I still wouldn't consider the second statement ad hominem, it is just a careless remark whose real meaning might be, "the candidate is so unelectable/undesirable that I don't think any Democrats would vote for him/her".

To me, an ad hominem is something more like a veiled insult. Someone saying Democrats wouldn't vote for that candidate would not draw any emotion from me. Saying Dumocrats wouldn't vote for that candidate, would, in my opinion be considered an ad hominem

Ad hominem
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Please go back and re-read my discussion on that. I concede that I should have been more specific that I meant a specific program. But if all the Democrats in Congress voted for a program then it isn't ad hominem to say so. Even if your intention is not complimentary re the Democrats.

Saying all the Republicans voted against Obamacare is not ad hominem even if your intent in saying it is not complimentary re the Republicans.

But saying that Republicans (in general) oppose healthcare is neither true nor supportable as argument and is intended to infer something about their character to make Republicans look bad. That is ad hominem.

To say that Democrats (in general) want big government is neither true nor supportable as argument and is intended to infer something about their character to make Democrats look bad. That is ad hominem.

But to say all Democrats supported

 

[Mertex]

But if all the Democrats in Congress voted for a program then it isn't ad hominem to say so. Even if your intention is not complimentary re the Democrats.

But that is what I've been trying to tell you. That isn't what your poll said. Your poll had two similar examples, one naming Republicans (#2) and one naming Democrats (#7), and it can be argued on both examples that they can't be proven or confirmed and therefore based on your "explanation of why #2 was ad hominem but #7 was not, you added in more information that was not provided earlier.

 

[Foxfyre]

But if all the Democrats in Congress voted for a program then it isn't ad hominem to say so. Even if your intention is not complimentary re the Democrats.

But that is what I've been trying to tell you. That isn't what your poll said. Your poll had two similar examples, one naming Republicans (#2) and one naming Democrats (#7), and it can be argued on both examples that they can't be proven or confirmed and therefore based on your "explanation of why #2 was ad hominem but #7 was not, you added in more information that was not provided earlier.

And I conceded that I should have been more specific. It should not prevent us from having a discussion over the topic of what ad hominem is and what it isn't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Identifying a person's belief accurately in a non-demeaning way is simply not ad hom by the traditional dictionary definitions.

Precisely!

Calling someone who is a liberal a liberal is not an ad hom. Neither is calling someone who embraces libertarianism a libertarian an ad hom. It is a statement of fact and therefore cannot be an ad hom.

The OP might be confused by the fact that the extreme right has been trying to demean the term liberal and use it as an insult but that doesn't alter the facts. Calling someone who is a liberal a liberal can never be an ad hom. Same applies to all of the other political positions adopted by posters in this forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Calling someone knowingly a liberal who is not a liberal or a libertarian who is not a libertarian can be an ad hom, because it attempts to smear the character by alleged meaning of the term.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Calling someone knowingly a liberal who is not a liberal or a libertarian who is not a libertarian can be an ad hom, because it attempts to smear the character by alleged meaning of the term.

Yes, that is the other side of the coin. There are plenty of examples of the extreme right using that ad hom against you in this forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And saying that a libertarian or a far right reactionary smears by calling me a 'liberal' is in no way an ad hom against said libertarian or reactionary. Calling a criminal a 'criminal' or a Nazi a Nazi is not an ad hom.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And saying that a libertarian or a far right reactionary smears by calling me a 'liberal' is in no way an ad hom against said libertarian or reactionary. Calling a criminal a 'criminal' or a Nazi a Nazi is not an ad hom.

Exactly.

Just as saying that someone is misconstruing the meaning of the term ad hom when that is what they are actually doing is not an ad hom either.

However implying that they are misconstruing the meaning of the term ad hom for some nefarious purpose would be a smear on their character if they were not doing it deliberately.

If they are deliberately misconstruing the meaning of the term ad hom for a nefarious purpose and they are called out for doing so then that is not an ad hom.

e.g.

Person X makes an OP statement that "everyone breaks the speed limit".

Person Y asks person X to provide a link proving that their OP statement is true.

Person X refuses to substantiate their OP statement.

Person Y provides a link proving that the OP statement by Person Y was false and directly quotes Person X's exact OP words asking why Person X made that false statement?

Person X then accuses Person Y of an "ad hom" and reports them to the mods.​

That is a case where Person X is nefariously misconstruing the meaning of the term ad hom in order to discredit Person Y and to report them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom