Playing dirty or attacking someone’s character traits during any debate or argument is sometimes needed in order to discredit their credibility and bring to light issues that could make them look unethical and not trustworthy. By definition a true ad hominem attack consists of attacking your opponent's character traits and consists of ignoring and intentionally diverting attention away from the real argument at hand. So yes there is no debate that ad hominem attacks are fallacious but I truly believe that under certain conditions an ad hominem attack is needed to effectively undermine a claim against your opponent. A great example of when it would be appropriate for someone to use an ad hominem attack would be during any political debate
to inform the likely voters of critical matters that could sway them away from electing your rival candidate. As a political candidate it’s your moral responsibility to bring attention matters that could in the long run hurt your community and society. Say I am running for office and my number one issue that is most close to my heart it the environment and I’m in favor of green energy. My opponent on the other hand is big on fracking and the environment isn't a big issue for him. I decide to hire an investigator to dig into my running mates background and find out if he is being bought by big oil companies and to see who are his biggest campaign donors. Several weeks later my investigator reveals to me undeniable evidence that my opponent is being bought out by big oil companies even though he knows that if the fracking continues that it will only have irreversible consequences on the environment. I now have the moral obligation to make an ad hominem attack against my rival running mate to inform the public and reveal to them that he is a man of no morals. Being owned by big oil companies and caring more about the money then the people's lives speaks loudly about his character traits. I’m now able to call him out on his character trait of being a dishonest individual and I will use that to appeal to the people. Ad hominem attacks aren't always illogical, but for for the most part they generally are. Sometimes however, they are needed in order to protect the people against those of immoral character traits.
What would you do if you were convicted of a crime you didn’t do? The story of Serial narrated by Sarah Koenig is about a man named Adnan Syed. Adna Syed was wrongly convicted of killing his ex girlfriend Hae Min Lee.Jay Wilds is a friend of Adnan who used to smoke weed with him sometimes after school,but he is also a suspect in the case. This story is interesting because Koenig is trying to find out who the murderer is of Hae Min Lee or if Adnan can be proven innocent. Believe that Adnan is innocent of the murdering of Hae Min Lee because one piece of evidence which are letters that a woman named Asia wrote to Adnan claiming that she saw Adna that day and at the time Hae was murdered at the library and that she even had a little chat with him. Another piece of evidence is that Best Buy tweeted a tweet saying that they never had a payphone which Jay claims that Adna called him from to come pick him up.
The chapter I will be summarizing is Chapter 23 from the Advanced Agreement section of “Thank you for Arguing” by Jay Heinrichs. In this chapter, the author focuses on describing Cicero’s five cannons of persuasion: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. He explains that these were purposely placed in this logical order because, “First, invent what you intend to say. Then decide what order you want to say it in; determine how you’ll style it to suit your particular audience; put it all down in your brain or on your computer; and finally get up and wow your audience.” Throughout the whole chapter, he in detail, describes how to structure and write a persuasive speech using these cannons of persuasion. The first cannon of persuasion
As stated in number thirty, getting the audience riled up depends upon making it believe that their desires are not being considered by the persuader’s opponent. Heinrichs calls this technique “The Belittlement Charge” (Thank You For Arguing, page 88).
Alley, Kristie. "Witch Trials - Accusers." Miner Descent. Miner Descent, 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 29
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, contexts, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The first piece Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution written by Elizabeth Bumiller, is an explanation. Bumiller addresses her points using facts rather than opinions, she also says, “Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.”(2), this signifies that this is an explanation and not an argument since he sees both sides instead of choosing one. For
It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate.
She will understand that it wasn’t about, ‘we didn’t want you, we wanted a white baby” (Albom 3). This is one of many quotes that Mitch Albom uses in his analysis of a recent mix-up in the sperm industry. Albom establishes an argument based on the idea that society should move away from turning child birth into something as easy as ordering pizza (Albom 2). Throughout the essay Albom utilizes many aspects of a good argument to be successful.
One of the techniques that I would use the majority of time was the ad-hominem fallacy. I would use claims of similar circumstances that the other person previously did to justify my actions. This allowed me to appear to have a moral high ground for my arguments. While I did have facts to back up these claims to a moral high ground, they did not contribute anything to the discussion (Paul & Elder, 2012). It only put the other person on the defensive and opened a gateway for more intense arguments. This intensity, on ...
First, we should understand what Ad Hominem is. An Ad Hominem fallacy has many different meanings depend on the situation and the people in that case. The online dictionary states that this fallacy means "appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason, "or "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.". According to Glen Whitman at Northridge University, "Ad Hominem is argument directed at the person. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater." But in philosophy study at Lander University, Ad Hominem is defined as "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." Based on what I see in my personal life, this fallacy means that people judge each other's action by their emotions, experiences and what they are told about others rather than their actions, ideas or their abilities.
The fallacies being used in this argument are Ad Hominem and Straw Man. Ad Hominem has to do with the way Trump verbally attacked Krauthammer, by calling him “boring” and a “clown.”
A speaker who uses speech as a means for personal gain at the expense others is speaking unethically. Orators must remain selfless in their speech, using the powers of persuasion to benefit their audience. Demagogues are an example of unethical speakers. Demagogues speak to the masses convincing them that helping him helps them. He (I don’t know why the demagogue is a he, but I needed a pronoun) uses hateful and angry speech to move the people to action. Demagogues can turn people to war, such as Cleon did in ancient Greece when he turned the Greeks against the Spartans, sparking a war that ultimately led to his demise.
Hunting may have been a crucial part of survival a 100,000 years ago, but in 2015 we have no need to hunt. Today hunting is just a cruel leisure activity.
In contemporary North America, if one were to ask almost any member of society what were the most heinous crimes a human being could commit, almost assuredly rape would be listed amongst every top five. Maybe it would even be competing for the number one spot. It is highly unlikely, absurd even, to think that any reasonable being would not find rape (or the broader term of sexual assault used in Canada) to be an abhorrent act becoming of no real human being. However, knowing this: that is, that the vast majority of citizens in North American society are in agreement on the nature of such a crime, it is all the more puzzling that many continue to harbour a mindset that gives them the tendency to blame the victim to an extent in such cases – especially in incidents where the perpetrator is male and the victim female.
In their essay, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ (1946), William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, two of the most eminent figures of the New Criticism school of thought of Literary Criticism, argue that the ‘intention’ of the author is not a necessary factor in the reading of a text.
There are certain things in this world that should not be allowed no matter what