Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[Failzero]

I agree with that, but the moderation is not nearly as overbearing as most other boards as you have referenced.

Damn straight ( I’m not Perma banned yet )

 

[playtime]

moi.

 

[JanetTheGreat]

There are plenty of good debaters here - but there are also plenty of trolls who don't want an honest discussion. Difficult to say where this site leans - there plenty of good right-wing users who frame their arguments intelligently, others not so much. Other forums out there are far worse with moderation, so this forum isn't too bad.

 

[Failzero]

There are plenty of good debaters here - but there are also plenty of trolls who don't want an honest discussion. Difficult to say where this site leans - there plenty of good right-wing users who frame their arguments intelligently, others not so much. Other forums out there are far worse with moderation, so this forum isn't too bad.

They have not Perma Banned me yet so there is that …

 

[EdwinAMartin]

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0fe8...XRpbWF0ZSthcmd1bWVudHMmZm9ybT1DU0JSQU5E&ntb=1

Like
Dislike

When Ad Hominem Arguments Can Be Legitimate​

In informal logic, an ad hominem argument is generally considered a fallacy when it attacks a person’s character, motives, or irrelevant personal traits instead of addressing the substance of their claim Britannica+1. This is because such attacks divert attention from the topic and appeal to prejudice rather than reason.

However, ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. They can be legitimate or rhetorically valid when the personal claims made about the arguer are logically relevant to the issue at hand and are properly justified Scribbr.

When They Are Legitimate​

1. Relevance to the topic – If the person’s character, past actions, or stated commitments are directly connected to the argument, the attack can be relevant. For example, questioning a witness’s credibility in court because they have a history of lying is not fallacious because it logically affects the trustworthiness of their testimony Britannica.
2. Circumstantial ad hominem – If the arguer’s actions or statements are inconsistent with their claims, and this inconsistency undermines the argument, it can be a valid point. For instance, if someone claims to oppose smoking but smokes themselves, that inconsistency can weaken their argument uploads.teachablecdn.com.
3. Abusive ad hominem – Direct personal insults may be legitimate in contexts where the audience is expected to judge the speaker’s character as part of evaluating their credibility, such as in political debates or public service roles The Fallacy Files.
4. Guilt by association – If the person’s affiliation with a group known for making false or harmful claims is relevant to the issue, it can be a legitimate consideration fnl.mit.edu.
5. Like
   Dislike​

   When Ad Hominem Arguments Can Be Legitimate​

   In informal logic, an ad hominem argument is generally considered a fallacy when it attacks a person’s character, motives, or irrelevant personal traits instead of addressing the substance of their claim Britannica+1. This is because such attacks divert attention from the topic and appeal to prejudice rather than reason.
   However, ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. They can be legitimate or rhetorically valid when the personal claims made about the arguer are logically relevant to the issue at hand and are properly justified Scribbr.
   

   When They Are Legitimate​

   1. Relevance to the topic – If the person’s character, past actions, or stated commitments are directly connected to the argument, the attack can be relevant. For example, questioning a witness’s credibility in court because they have a history of lying is not fallacious because it logically affects the trustworthiness of their testimony Britannica.
   2. Circumstantial ad hominem – If the arguer’s actions or statements are inconsistent with their claims, and this inconsistency undermines the argument, it can be a valid point. For instance, if someone claims to oppose smoking but smokes themselves, that inconsistency can weaken their argument uploads.teachablecdn.com.
   3. Abusive ad hominem – Direct personal insults may be legitimate in contexts where the audience is expected to judge the speaker’s character as part of evaluating their credibility, such as in political debates or public service roles The Fallacy Files.
   4. Guilt by association – If the person’s affiliation with a group known for making false or harmful claims is relevant to the issue, it can be a legitimate consideration fnl.mit.edu.

 

[Synthaholic]

You finally said something that I agree with Rumphole

Yes. "agree with". You don't care that it's false. You agree with it anyway.


EDIT: Dang, this is an old thread.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yes. "agree with". You don't care that it's false. You agree with it anyway.


EDIT: Dang, this is an old thread.

I am the most serious one, SERIOUSLY!

 

[dblack]

I am the most serious one, SERIOUSLY!

You can't be serious.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You can't be serious.