On Tue, 15 May 2001 Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote:
I may regret this, but...
I think there are several people here who might benefit from reading this excellent essay on Jeffersonian debate, 'The Mannerly Art of Disagreement,' by Macedon.
All very civilising stuff. However, I disagree with his section on 'ad hominem attack'. Argumentum ad hominem is a specific form of logical fallacy, in which one claims that ones opponent is wrong because of his/her personal failings. This is logically invalid, in that the conclusion does not follow from the premiss. Macedon seems to get this confused with straightforward insults, which are not logically fallacious.
For example, 'Your observations don't prove that the Earth goes round the Sun, because you're a useless wanker with no more right to live on God's Earth than a weasel' commits the ad hominem fallacy. On the other hand, 'The motion of the Earth is demonstrated quite unambiguously by Foucault's pendulum, you stupid cunt', is a valid argument followed by an insult.
I also think Macedon is far too absolutist about expressions of anger. There is a game which one can observe, in which one participant in a debate goads their opponent more and more until eventually their opponent gets riled, at which point their opponent is deemed somehow to have lost. It's silly and childish. People do get angry, people do get upset, and any of us can be goaded into aggression: this has no bearing on the validity or otherwise of their arguments, and it shouldn't be seen as some kind of victory for the goader.
Finally, there is one other point I would add to Macedon's guidelines: anyone who responds to a point with 'Bzzt!' should be shot in the knees.
Iain