Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Ad Hominem..

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it needs to be said (sadly) what Ad Hominem means...

Ad Hominem: Adj.
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made(1, 2)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.nizkor.org...

You can NOT wrongly accuse someone of Ad Hominem because you or someone else was mentioned in an argument.

It has to be an attack on you, or your character.... If the claim logically explains a concept without attacking a person, it's not Ad Hominem.

Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:23:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What series is this from? I want to see more.

My argument about scientist was given because I knew people would bring up the disproportionate amount of data saying people cause Global Warming. I brought it up to show that that argument is irrelevant because this [my argument] is why there is so much...

The idea is that there is disproportionate evidence only because there is highly disproportionate research being funded.

Nothing was judged by character.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:26:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:23:39 AM, donald.keller wrote:
What series is this from? I want to see more.

Check out the video posters channel, there are more listed among his posted videos.
Debate.org Moderator
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:28:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thanks ! :D
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:35:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I think it needs to be said (sadly) what Ad Hominem means...

Ad Hominem: Adj.
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made(1, 2)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.nizkor.org...

You can NOT wrongly accuse someone of Ad Hominem because you or someone else was mentioned in an argument.

It has to be an attack on you, or your character.... If the claim logically explains a concept without attacking a person, it's not Ad Hominem.

Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I believe the quote in this case was (all [sic]):

"Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is."

This is an ad hominem attack since it makes a statement about the scientists (They never actually try to find how natural some of it is) which serves only as an attack on their ethics, and could have easily been left out. I could post a full critique of this argument and its flaws, but it is 3:30 AM and I should really be sleeping now. If you ask, though, I will gladly post a full critique.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:51:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:35:07 AM, drhead wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I think it needs to be said (sadly) what Ad Hominem means...

Ad Hominem: Adj.
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made(1, 2)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.nizkor.org...

You can NOT wrongly accuse someone of Ad Hominem because you or someone else was mentioned in an argument.

It has to be an attack on you, or your character.... If the claim logically explains a concept without attacking a person, it's not Ad Hominem.

Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I believe the quote in this case was (all [sic]):

"Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is."

This is an ad hominem attack since it makes a statement about the scientists (They never actually try to find how natural some of it is) which serves only as an attack on their ethics, and could have easily been left out. I could post a full critique of this argument and its flaws, but it is 3:30 AM and I should really be sleeping now. If you ask, though, I will gladly post a full critique.

"My argument about scientist was given because I knew people would bring up the disproportionate amount of data saying people cause Global Warming. I brought it up to show that that argument is irrelevant because this [my argument] is why there is so much...

The idea is that there is disproportionate evidence only because there is highly disproportionate research being funded."

That's not an attack, it's a locally claim as to why there is a disproportionate amount of research being done on one side. It has literally nothing to do with anyone's ethics or character.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:13:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:35:07 AM, drhead wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I think it needs to be said (sadly) what Ad Hominem means...

Ad Hominem: Adj.
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made(1, 2)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.nizkor.org...

You can NOT wrongly accuse someone of Ad Hominem because you or someone else was mentioned in an argument.

It has to be an attack on you, or your character.... If the claim logically explains a concept without attacking a person, it's not Ad Hominem.

Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I believe the quote in this case was (all [sic]):

"Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is."

This is an ad hominem attack since it makes a statement about the scientists (They never actually try to find how natural some of it is) which serves only as an attack on their ethics, and could have easily been left out. I could post a full critique of this argument and its flaws, but it is 3:30 AM and I should really be sleeping now. If you ask, though, I will gladly post a full critique.

How is this an ad hominem attack? This is a critique on the methodology that scientists use, not on the actual scientists.

And what is the debate/forum in discussion?

And who needs to work on their S&G? =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 8:08:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:13:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:35:07 AM, drhead wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I think it needs to be said (sadly) what Ad Hominem means...

Ad Hominem: Adj.
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made(1, 2)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.nizkor.org...

You can NOT wrongly accuse someone of Ad Hominem because you or someone else was mentioned in an argument.

It has to be an attack on you, or your character.... If the claim logically explains a concept without attacking a person, it's not Ad Hominem.

Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I believe the quote in this case was (all [sic]):

"Why has it bee so scientifically proven that Human's are involved i Global Warming? Because scientists are usually only paid to find out how Humans affect Global Warming, and so only discover that we do. They never actually try to find how natural some of it is."

This is an ad hominem attack since it makes a statement about the scientists (They never actually try to find how natural some of it is) which serves only as an attack on their ethics, and could have easily been left out. I could post a full critique of this argument and its flaws, but it is 3:30 AM and I should really be sleeping now. If you ask, though, I will gladly post a full critique.

How is this an ad hominem attack? This is a critique on the methodology that scientists use, not on the actual scientists.

And what is the debate/forum in discussion?

And who needs to work on their S&G? =)

See! I told him it wasn't!...

And pretend you didn't see the S&G.... S&G is a myth, it never existed... <.< lol

http://www.debate.org...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 8:49:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 8:48:50 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's funny you should post this...the other day I was thinking of doing the same thing lol.

fixed
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 9:06:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 8:48:50 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's funny you should post this...the other day I was thinking of doing this same thing lol.

Lol some people just need to learn what is and isn't Ad Hominem.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 9:07:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 9:06:43 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 8:48:50 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's funny you should post this...the other day I was thinking of doing this same thing lol.

Lol some people just need to learn what is and isn't Ad Hominem.

http://www.debate.org...

^ this guy
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 10:41:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 9:07:46 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/12/2013 9:06:43 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 8:48:50 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's funny you should post this...the other day I was thinking of doing this same thing lol.

Lol some people just need to learn what is and isn't Ad Hominem.

http://www.debate.org...

^ this guy

That guy could simply use a lot of learning. :o
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 10:43:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 8:08:12 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 3:13:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

See! I told him it wasn't!...

And pretend you didn't see the S&G.... S&G is a myth, it never existed... <.< lol

http://www.debate.org...

lol

ug...I remember avoiding the thread and the debate, because I have no idea how to evaluate those arguments. good luck. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 12:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 10:43:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/12/2013 8:08:12 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 3:13:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

See! I told him it wasn't!...

And pretend you didn't see the S&G.... S&G is a myth, it never existed... <.< lol

http://www.debate.org...

lol

ug...I remember avoiding the thread and the debate, because I have no idea how to evaluate those arguments. good luck. =)

Lol I agree.. I'm not sure how to evaluate them either. And thanks. I'll be posting again when I have free time...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I see why this could be taken as an ad hom attack. I believe the way it was intended was for "if you actually look into the little research ..." to mean "if any fair person looks into the research ..." However, the alternative reading is "if my opponent had actually looked into the little research ..." In the latter reading, the insult is that the person's opponent was too lazy to do a proper job of examining the evidence. That's an ad hom. What the statement meant, whether the opponent or the public in general, has to judged by the reader of the debate.

The common way to mention an opponent without an implication of any ad hom is simply to quote, "My opponent said 'xyz'"

Blatant ad hom attacks include "My opponent was too stupid to ..." or "My opponent didn't read my arguments." or "My opponent didn't read his own sources." Those attacks attribute disagreement to a character flaw of the opponent, either stupidity or laziness. Even if the opponent really is lazy or stupid, you can't claim that in a debate because there is no way to prove it, and because the debate depends solely on the arguments presented, not how they were derived or how points were missed.

The rebuttals can be rephrased in terms of arguments, "My opponents rebuttal did not respond to ..." or "I clearly argued xyz to which my opponent did not respond." or "My opponents sources contradict his point."

I think that an insulting attack on an argument like, "That argument is nuts." is acceptable, because the argument is attacked rather the person. It's usually not a good debate tactic, because it distracts from the logic, but it's not a personal attack.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 12:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 12:54:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I see why this could be taken as an ad hom attack. I believe the way it was intended was for "if you actually look into the little research ..." to mean "if any fair person looks into the research ..." However, the alternative reading is "if my opponent had actually looked into the little research ..." In the latter reading, the insult is that the person's opponent was too lazy to do a proper job of examining the evidence. That's an ad hom. What the statement meant, whether the opponent or the public in general, has to judged by the reader of the debate.

The common way to mention an opponent without an implication of any ad hom is simply to quote, "My opponent said 'xyz'"

Blatant ad hom attacks include "My opponent was too stupid to ..." or "My opponent didn't read my arguments." or "My opponent didn't read his own sources." Those attacks attribute disagreement to a character flaw of the opponent, either stupidity or laziness. Even if the opponent really is lazy or stupid, you can't claim that in a debate because there is no way to prove it, and because the debate depends solely on the arguments presented, not how they were derived or how points were missed.

The rebuttals can be rephrased in terms of arguments, "My opponents rebuttal did not respond to ..." or "I clearly argued xyz to which my opponent did not respond." or "My opponents sources contradict his point."

I think that an insulting attack on an argument like, "That argument is nuts." is acceptable, because the argument is attacked rather the person. It's usually not a good debate tactic, because it distracts from the logic, but it's not a personal attack.

Well the post doesn't refer to anyone specific. It is well interpreted that phrase "if you do such and such" is general, and never targets a person.

I understand what you are saying, although the person claimed I was attacking the ethics of the Scientist.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 1:25:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Attacking the ethics of the scientist is not bad conduct. The "you" is not the scientist, it is either the opponent or the generic fair person. Hmm, maybe the generic fair person should be "y'all."
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 1:25:08 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Attacking the ethics of the scientist is not bad conduct. The "you" is not the scientist, it is either the opponent or the generic fair person. Hmm, maybe the generic fair person should be "y'all."

"If y'all just look a little closer..."

I like it...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 5:55:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 12:54:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:12:18 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Saying "We only know and hear one side of this issue because scientist are only funded for projects researching one side... But if you actually look into the little research done on the other side of this, you find a completely different story..." is NOT Ad Hominem. Saying it's Ad Hominem because someone is mentioned is simply unwarranted.

I just feel a few people need to relearn what Ad Hominem is.

I see why this could be taken as an ad hom attack. I believe the way it was intended was for "if you actually look into the little research ..." to mean "if any fair person looks into the research ..." However, the alternative reading is "if my opponent had actually looked into the little research ..." In the latter reading, the insult is that the person's opponent was too lazy to do a proper job of examining the evidence. That's an ad hom. What the statement meant, whether the opponent or the public in general, has to judged by the reader of the debate.

I didn't even notice that, but Roy has a good point here. What's funny though is that drhead didn't notice it either. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?