Let's settle this - Ad hominems

[Gadarene]

Judging from that every Creationist thread has insults, they actually did. I'm just filling in the blanks.

That's nice, but that has nothing to do with the correct definition of ad hom

 

[Gadarene]

This is not an ad hom.

"Creationism is a load of nonsense because of (citations). Also, you're a butt for thinking it's true."

This is an ad hom.

"You're a butt, so creationism is a load of nonsense."

 

[Left]

That's nice, but that has nothing to do with the correct definition of ad hom

It does when to define ad hominem my way means I can call out all the annoying insults on the debate forums as Logical Fallacies, and to define it their way means they will keep doing it.

 

[Gadarene]

It does when to define ad hominem my way means I can call out all the annoying insults on the debate forums as Logical Fallacies, and to define it their way means they will keep doing it.

You're not going to gain credibility by redefining logical terms (!) for your personal benefit.

If people insult you, this forum has a report button and moderators. Use them.

 

[Gadarene]

I've just decided that quoting the bible now constitutes a logical fallacy, and thus is inadmissible in debate.

 

[Left]

Here's how I'd argue that insults are a logical fallacy though:

In a debate, two sides must present arguments and defend their stances. Each one is on "defense". Person A says "You are a suspicious character". Person B goes on defense and responds to the allegations, but when he does, there are already more allegations from Person A. Person B soon realizes the only way to defend is to go on offense against Person A. And then we have no debate, we have a name calling match.

 

[Gadarene]

Here's how I'd argue that insults are a logical fallacy though:

In a debate, two sides must present arguments and defend their stances. Each one is on "defense". Person A says "You are a suspicious character". Person B goes on defense and responds to the allegations, but when he does, there are already more allegations from Person A. Person B soon realizes the only way to defend is to go on offense against Person A. And then we have no debate, we have a name calling match.

You could call it a case of an intentional red herring informal fallacy. It's not a failure of logic, but the informal fallacies are more the bad-form fallacies than logical ones. It's only illogical if it applies to the arguments, not the structure of the debate.

 

[variant]

Judging from that every Creationist thread has insults, they actually did. I'm just filling in the blanks.

That says something about the quality of debate on the forum not which logical fallacies are present.

 

[loveofourlord]

One thing to be careful about in these kind of debates, is to avoid the fallacy fallacy and I see that alot with false ad hominem fallacies, Your a idiot if you believe the earth is flat, because of X/Y/Z evidence" calling that a ad hominem fallacy, would be guilty of the fallacy fallacy.

 

[Soyeong]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

An ad hominem is not a fancy term for insulting someone, but rather it is a logical fallacy, and thus involves making an error in logic. If I were to call someone a butt, then that would just be rude, but if I were to claim that someone's argument is wrong because they are a butt, then that would be an ad hominem because even if it were true that they were a butt, it wouldn't logically imply that their argument was wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

Depends. You are missing the crucial bit of information in order to tell.

If the response to the claim is
"you're wrong because you are a butt", then it is an ad hominim.

If the response instead is
"you're wrong for such and such reason. And fyi: you're a butt", then it isn't and it is just an insult.

 

[durangodawood]

..."you're wrong because you are a butt", then it is an ad hominim....

"youre wrong because you are a dick".

Thats an ad hom phallusy

 

[loveofourlord]

hehe what I see so often like I mentioned is people fall for the fallacy fallacy when dealing with ad hominen.

 

[Khalliqa]

Reason #472189034718094789107489017384901784390178490178943071890437891304789107489013789047189047819047389013740913290437

why philosophy/logic courses should be streaming through the k-12 curricula..

*carry on...

 

[Dave-W]

"youre wrong because you are a dick".
Thats an ad hom phallusy

Nice!

Just remind me to not rub him the wrong way .....

 

[Khalliqa]

Nice!

Just remind me to not rub him the wrong way .....

Turrble I'm so mad I'm laughing at this

 

[Kylie]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

Technically, if they say, "God is not real because you are a butt," then it is an ad hom. If they say, "God is not real AND you are a butt," then it is not an ad hom.

An ad hom is any argument that states, "Your position in this topic is incorrect because you have some quality which I will portray as undesirable, and that quality is completely unrelated to the position you hold."

So claiming that someone can't speak about fixing a computer because they can't fix a broken toilet is an ad hom. But saying that they can't fix a broken computer because they failed the computer course at college is not an ad hom.

 

[FundyJohn]

Not sure if it counts as ad hominem, only that it is a non sequitur.

Best wishes, Strivax.

My debate and rhetoric instructor would agree with you. I however believe that the negative conclusion is implied and would at that point become an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

IF that is the content of his/her response, that is the very definition of ad hom.

 

[Joshua_5]

My debate and rhetoric instructor would agree with you. I however believe that the negative conclusion is implied and would at that point become an ad hominem fallacy.

Agreed. Whenever you state "you are a butt!" (or worse!) during a debate, you are implying that your opponent is wrong because (amongst other reasons), he is a butt. It therefore becomes the ad hominem fallacy, whether or not you explicitly state "And this is another reason you are wrong".