Ad hominems, etc. should be legit

[Al B. Sure!]

but Boris, the candidates' public policy stances are extensions of their emotional pre-dispositions... why aren't the pre-dispositions up for debate? One candidate wants to institute faith-based schooling; why can't I attack his faith?

[Immortal Wombat]

As Agathon has said repeatedly - you can, but only if there isn't any other reason you can find to disagree with his stance. And at that point, any attack on his faith will look to an outside like you've lost the debate already. It's a poor debating technique.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
but Boris, the candidates' public policy stances are extensions of their emotional pre-dispositions... why aren't the pre-dispositions up for debate? One candidate wants to institute faith-based schooling; why can't I attack his faith?

Because it's irrelevant to the public policy. As I said before: The biases of a person has nothing to do with the merits of their position in a debate. It may explain why they advocate that position, but whoop-de-doo. That may be edifying to know, but it doesn't matter when you're concerned with whether or not what they're advocating is logically sound.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
and in different contexts they are entirely appropriate.

Hence my "not normally true" caveat.

[Sava]

@ thread

[Lefty Scaevola]

Ad hominens are very important in the real world, paritularly business, a guy with a great reputation speaking someting somewhat off the wall will usually prevail over a percieved dork dispensing something very sensible.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm ignoring Lefty's point entirely because I perceive him to be a big dork. It's the monocle.

See, that doesn't get the debate very far, AS.

[Whaleboy]

I disagree with you right there in your second sentence. A debate is not a dialogue between two different logical positions but between the two positions as well as everything that created them.

Wrong, it is a debate between two different conclusions, so for example you might televise one if you are very bored as "determinism vs. free will" and have a big pool of premises and logic to construct and deconstruct a position. It is not a debate between arguments, since one uses the argument as a means to the conclusion, or a means to the destruction of the other argument. Nonetheless, that question is irrelevant since in both cases, argument and conclusion, the predominant factor is logic.

a logical position is not self-sufficient. The basic level of being is the level of instincts. Human beings, too, are firstly motivated on this basic level of instincts. It is only with the development of language that humans decided to attempt to rationalize their instincts. They developed reason to justify their instinctual motivations.

Ah! An emotivist! *Whaleboy licks lips*. Each of us has our own emotional, personal motivations for an argument. I might be a pacifist because I have an irrational hatred of war because of relatives killed in WWII, or having spoken to someone who suffered in a concentration camp, or whatever. My experience however is not representative of war, but my own reasons for purporting an argument are fundamentally irrelevant to the argument itself. I choose that pacifist view because I like it, why do I like it? Because certain arguments supporting it are stronger. Why do I think they are stronger, or why do I prefer those arguments with those premises and reason? Further premises and conclusions. That's the logical position to be addressed, but many people, even the most intellectual in a debate will choose the conclusion that agrees with their own personal emotive disposition. That is again, irrelevant to the arguments. It's like questioning the means by which a player joins a football team with a view to seeing which team is better. The only way to tell which team is better is to let them play!

you have the situation that i compared to Hiedegger's origin of art where the created is the creator's interpretation of the motivating factor.

Ayer and Stevenson.

therefore, with one's logical position being but an extenstion of himself and his emotional motivations, it makes no sense to simply battle logical positions. The motivations that these logical positions justify must also do battle.

There is a fundamental separation between the two however. We don't use debates as a dick size contest. The emotional motivations are necessarily irrelevant to the argument and conclusion, though the argument and conclusion are not irrelevant to the emotional motivation, we are not psycho-analysing the arguer in a debate - whose function remains to analyse, explore, refute or support a given view. Note that some people will choose an opinion based on its strengths as shown in a debate in the first place, emotive motivations in this case are demonstrated to be far too whimsical even if they did have potential value in a debate, which they don't .

[Whaleboy]

I've even drawn a pretty picture for y'all

The house's of cards present two differing arguments with their conclusion at the apex. You and me are choosing our respective positions, using our emotional dispositions, the fuzzy things above our names. You see they only affect us, not the arguments... a debate is about the arguments and the conclusions you see.... so ones emotive disposition is irrelevant.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Agathon:

Bob has some plan to change the education system in a predominately spanish area. Bob is a racist and his education plan is an arguement derived from his racism. would it be improper to bypass the education plan and simply attack Bob for his racism?

thats the crux of my arguement. reasoned arguements are just justifications for predispossed emotional instincts. It would seem silly to combat arguements and not attack the man from which the arguements developed.

seems to me youve snucked something in there.

1. His plan is NOT an argument, its a plan which may be based on an arguement.
2. If the argument for his plan is based on racist assumptions, and without those assumptions the plan ceases to make sense, it would seem rational to point that out. But then its NOT an ad hominem.
3. If Bob is going to be the one IMPLEMENTING the plan, it would seem to be relevant, since in that case we're not arguing concepts but personnel
4. If Bob is arguing as an expert authority (ive looked at a hundred studies, trust me) then of course its relevant

[Shogun Gunner]

Spear:

In another thread, you demoaned the fact that you had trouble with the ladies.

Is this how you interact in all your human contact situations? Seriously, you must be on a perma-troll when posting at Apolyton. I can't possible believe you are being yourself online.

P.S. Great picture Whaleboy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Ad hominens are very important in the real world, paritularly business, a guy with a great reputation speaking someting somewhat off the wall will usually prevail over a percieved dork dispensing something very sensible.

see it depends on context. In making a real world decision, in business, as a consumer, as a voter, i often have to make decisions about something where I dont have the expertise or the resources to evaluate all the arguements - I may rely in whole or in part on authority, on the testimony of experts who know more than I do. I dont have the option of avoiding the decision, or if I do, that is itself a decision with consequences.

On forums for debate like this one, however, theres really no reason for that. I can simply avoid a debate with no particular consequences, and just leave it to those who know more. If no one here has such knowledge, or only one side, then its probably not a topic thats worth discussing here.

Example - Oerdin says, for the sake of argument, that 60% of the Iraqis in town X are pro-US. Theres no way for me to check that. But theres NOTHING I need to do about that particular fact, and theres NO point for me to discuss Oerdins personal reliability in order to support or challenge the point. If i was Oerdins commanding officer it would be something different.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ad hominems are legit in circumstances where we have to make a decision quickly and the only evidence we have is our evidence of a person's credibility or intelligence.

The problem is just that people too often think it's "evidence of a person's (low) credibility or intelligence" when they simply do not like the arguments of the other side.....of course this never happens on Poly

[Gibsie]

I had an "amusing" argument about ad hominems yesterday. Two people at another forum were insulting each others' intelligence, and one said the other's spelling was awful. The response was, "If you have to resort to attacking my spelling that just shows how bad your argument is". I would contend that when you're discussing how dumb someone is, the fact that they can't grasp that "should of" is not a valid term, is valid.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


The problem is just that people too often think it's "evidence of a person's (low) credibility or intelligence" when they simply do not like the arguments of the other side.....of course this never happens on Poly

well youre wrong. Youre wrong cause youre an idiot. YOure an idiot cause you would argue something this wrong. Right? [sarcasm mode off}