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

[Statistikhengst]

Interesting debate, here...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There have been at least a dozen posters in this thread who have made the same observation about the OP.

I believe that Lewis Carroll summed up the OP quite succinctly.

The dictionary definition of the term ad hom is generally agreed upon as the valid definition;

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]

adjective
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.​

The definitions provided by the OP sound more like Humpty Dumpty IMO.

Now I have little doubt whatsoever that in the OP's opinion that is an ad hom.

However it cannot be an ad hom under either dictionary definition because this post answers the questions in the OP in a reasoned and intellectual manner.

Yes, the case can be made that likening the OP to Humpty Dumpty's scornful tone could be an attack on her character but that isn't the case when it happens to be true.

Needless to say this post will be reported by the OP even though it is directly on topic, addresses the OP and does not violate the true dictionary definition of the term ad hom.

PS I have taken a copy of this post for the record just in case I need to defend it with CK later.

I don't get what the argument is about. What you just posted pretty much covers it and its not like the definition is open for different interpretations.

It is what it is.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Perhaps life would be easier if Foxfyre could just publish the comprehensive list of all the real ad-homs out there, and then the list of all of the fake ad-homs.

Easy!

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

#6 is ad hom, and so is #2.

 

[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.

#6 is ad hom, and so is #2.

All the even numbered poll options are ad hom and here is why:

#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.

If the statement is "All the Republicans in Congress voted against Obamacare", that would be an accurate statement and in no way assumes anything other about Republicans other than they all voted no. It focuses on an action or actual statement, and not anything personal about Republicans. But to say all Republicans oppose healthcare is to characterize Republicans in a personal way that is both inaccurate and will invariably derail the discussion if anybody responds.

#4 "You don't want to help the poor." Again this is assuming something about the person personally--what he/she WANTS rather than what he/she SAID. Saying "If we do what you say, that will hurt and not help the poor. Do you want that?" would take it out of the realm of ad hominem. But except in very narrow contexts, if the sentence starts with "You want to. . . ." or "You think. . . ." or "You hope. . . ." etc. you are characterizing the person personally rather than commenting on what the person actually said. And that is what make it ad hom.

#6 "Why do you hate gays?" Only if the members has said, "I hate gays" or any reasonable facsimile would this question not be ad hom. It assumes an attitude about the person rather than focusing on whatever the person said and that makes it ad hom.

#8 "Democrats love big government." This is the same category of ad hom as with #2. It assumes something about all Democrats that is not in evidence and is usually a prejudicial statement to judge Democrats. To say "History shows that Democrats are more likely to vote for the big government solution than are the Republicans" would not be an ad hominem statement. You might be asked to back it up, but it wouldn't be ad hominem.

#10 "You lied about XXX" This one may be the most subjective of the examples because it requires definition of a 'lie'. In retrospect I might have used a different definition had I thought about that more, but my definition of a lie is telling an intentional untruth. A person might be repeating a lie but if he/she believes it to be true, IMO it is not lying. So to say that the person 'lied' is sufficiently accusatory to be personal and that would make it ad hom.

SUMMARY: It doesn't necessarily have to be personally insulting, but ad hominem is any statement that includes any personality trait or presumed character trait or anything personal about the person making the statement.

I think the definition provided in the OP explains it very well and explains it as I generally explain it to debate teams I have coached.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"ad hominem is any statement that includes any personality trait or presumed character trait or anything personal about the person making the statement" is not included in the traditional, accepted definitions give above. Ad hom is the negative attributing the character of a person. Calling a pedophile a pedophile is not ad hom; calling one who is not a pedophile is an ad hom.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Pogo]

#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".

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The difference [that #2 is ad hom and #7 is not] is subtle but would [not] be judged by a competent debate judge." They might be fallacies but certainly not cases of prima facie ad hom.

 

[Ravi]

Looks like we need a competent debate judge.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I believe in cause and effect, myself.

This forum is quite lax by way of allowing the expression of certain opinions as well as the reaction to them, and so as a result, it tends to attract many posters who have been booted from other sites. The haters who rave about faggots and Jews find a home here as a result. The makeup of this forum is not representative of the public at large nor is it representative of all discussion groups. Each discussion group is unique and is governed by the way it is engineered by those running it.

So much of this talk about what is and what is not an Ad Hom misses the bigger picture in regards to what spawned the ad hom in the first place. Unless one takes into consideration the nature of the idea expressed that resulted in the ad hom, they aren't really addressing it. If people remain value neutral in regards to the idea but not to the response to it, all they are accomplishing is a form of tacit support for the idea. If person A can say "I believe there should be no limits to age when it comes to sex" or "Jews should be gathered in one place so we can kill them all more easily", but person B cannot say "You are a fucking creep" in response because it is an "Ad hom", then the site in question that administers in this fashion is actually limiting free speech so as to protect the agenda.

The way I see it in regards to the relationship between free speech and ad homs at a website is this: They can allow all manner of ideas and also allow the natural reaction to them. To a reasonable degree, this is what this board does. They can also limit the expression of ideas in more or less equal measure to the way they limit the reaction to them by crafting limitations on hate speech as well as the ad homs. This is often filtered through the agendas of those running the board, however, and so many boards become skewed in one direction or the other. The third approach, and one I think is the worst, is to remain absolutely value neutral by way of the expression of the idea -- allowing any and all manner of hate speech -- but censoring the hell out of anybody by way of reply.

The whole thing about ad homs is that it needs to be placed within the greater context by viewing it in terms of the totality of the nature of speech allowed at a forum. Sure, they are privately owned and so the notion of free speech doesn't really apply, but it is the consistency of what speech they do allow that is more important than the fact they do censor.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I believe in cause and effect, myself.

This forum is quite lax by way of allowing the expression of certain opinions as well as the reaction to them, and so as a result, it tends to attract many posters who have been booted from other sites. The haters who rave about faggots and Jews find a home here as a result. The makeup of this forum is not representative of the public at large nor is it representative of all discussion groups. Each discussion group is unique and is governed by the way it is engineered by those running it.

So much of this talk about what is and what is not an Ad Hom misses the bigger picture in regards to what spawned the ad hom in the first place. Unless one takes into consideration the nature of the idea expressed that resulted in the ad hom, they aren't really addressing it. If people remain value neutral in regards to the idea but not to the response to it, all they are accomplishing is a form of tacit support for the idea. If person A can say "I believe there should be no limits to age when it comes to sex" or "Jews should be gathered in one place so we can kill them all more easily", but person B cannot say "You are a fucking creep" in response because it is an "Ad hom", then the site in question that administers in this fashion is actually limiting free speech so as to protect the agenda.

The way I see it in regards to the relationship between free speech and ad homs at a website is this: They can allow all manner of ideas and also allow the natural reaction to them. To a reasonable degree, this is what this board does. They can also limit the expression of ideas in more or less equal measure to the way they limit the reaction to them by crafting limitations on hate speech as well as the ad homs. This is often filtered through the agendas of those running the board, however, and so many boards become skewed in one direction or the other. The third approach, and one I think is the worst, is to remain absolutely value neutral by way of the expression of the idea -- allowing any and all manner of hate speech -- but censoring the hell out of anybody by way of reply.

The whole thing about ad homs is that it needs to be placed within the greater context by viewing it in terms of the totality of the nature of speech allowed at a forum. Sure, they are privately owned and so the notion of free speech doesn't really apply, but it is the consistency of what speech they do allow that is more important than the fact they do censor.

Very insightful, very well written. Great food for adult-like-thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

At the risk of further futility I'm just going to take this little piece here as it offers a clear-cut example -- even though it's going to rehash definitions already laid out:

Another example--literary license taken here and not to be taken as a literal post:

X posts: "A balanced budget is the best thing we can do for the middle class."
Y posts: "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican."​

Y's post is clearly ad hominem and makes the subject Republicanism and X is expressing Republican views rather than focusing on the validity of X's statement. Whether or not X is a Republican or whether Republicans endorse it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement itself is a valid statement.

Y is clearly NOT ad hominem. To be so, the term "Republican", in and of itself, would have to be a slur.

To actually be ad hominem, one little change is needed, to wit, change the original:

"Of course you would say that. You're a Republican." ...to
"Of course you would say that. You're an idiot."
​

-- see the difference?
In your first example X is concluding that the state of being a Republican is the basis of Y's statement. That may indeed be a valid conclusion (or it may not), but the mere fact that it's phrased in the second person does not make it ad hominem, because it says nothing about Y's character or intelligence. It may be rather a Hasty Generalization fallacy (dependent on the premise that "all Republicans think alike") but it does not blame Y's conclusion on his personal flaws.

The second, rewritten ("idiot") version makes no pretense of delving into Y's conclusion process and instead goes straight to a personal insult. It has no involvement with the actual issue discussed at all. That's what ad hominem is.

I missed this post and thank you for making an actual argument instead of trying to make this personally confrontational.

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.

 

[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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. Noticing that you are a libertarian, foxfyre, is not an ad hom; it is not an attack on your characteer or and appeal to feelings or prejudices. Saying that "all democrats" support this or that is probably a fallacy but not an ad hom.

Definition of AD HOMINEM
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
Ad hominem - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[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?

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe in cause and effect, myself.

This forum is quite lax by way of allowing the expression of certain opinions as well as the reaction to them, and so as a result, it tends to attract many posters who have been booted from other sites. The haters who rave about faggots and Jews find a home here as a result. The makeup of this forum is not representative of the public at large nor is it representative of all discussion groups. Each discussion group is unique and is governed by the way it is engineered by those running it.

So much of this talk about what is and what is not an Ad Hom misses the bigger picture in regards to what spawned the ad hom in the first place. Unless one takes into consideration the nature of the idea expressed that resulted in the ad hom, they aren't really addressing it. If people remain value neutral in regards to the idea but not to the response to it, all they are accomplishing is a form of tacit support for the idea. If person A can say "I believe there should be no limits to age when it comes to sex" or "Jews should be gathered in one place so we can kill them all more easily", but person B cannot say "You are a fucking creep" in response because it is an "Ad hom", then the site in question that administers in this fashion is actually limiting free speech so as to protect the agenda.

The way I see it in regards to the relationship between free speech and ad homs at a website is this: They can allow all manner of ideas and also allow the natural reaction to them. To a reasonable degree, this is what this board does. They can also limit the expression of ideas in more or less equal measure to the way they limit the reaction to them by crafting limitations on hate speech as well as the ad homs. This is often filtered through the agendas of those running the board, however, and so many boards become skewed in one direction or the other. The third approach, and one I think is the worst, is to remain absolutely value neutral by way of the expression of the idea -- allowing any and all manner of hate speech -- but censoring the hell out of anybody by way of reply.

The whole thing about ad homs is that it needs to be placed within the greater context by viewing it in terms of the totality of the nature of speech allowed at a forum. Sure, they are privately owned and so the notion of free speech doesn't really apply, but it is the consistency of what speech they do allow that is more important than the fact they do censor.

Avoiding ad hominem is not value neutral however. There is a absolutely nothing wrong with tearing into a member's reprehensible statement. There is nothing wrong with saying "that is reprehensible" or "disgusting" or "indefensible" or "hateful." You can get your point across without having to reference the character of the member in any fashion. And when you do so your argument becomes so much more powerful because it doesn't throw the thread into an exchange of personal insults that usually dissolves into a schoolyard food fight. And that will always weaken any argument that has been made.

 

[Foxfyre]

​

...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 even if it alludes to the person's character or something about the person. That's why I chose the definition I did for the OP because it does include all the inferences that can be ad hominem and would be judged so by a debate judge. Wiki doesn't always tell the whole story because wiki is often not written by well educated professionals.