abaddon

Is it legitimate? I've seen it numerous times, heard it numerous times. I've used it numerous times, and I always get people who skate the point I was making to focus on whining about "personal attacks" instead.

Is including some sarcastic or insulting or negatively-descriptive words toward someone legitimate in an informal/sloppy debate or not? For example, imagine you are arguing with a creationist, and he keeps misunderstanding what you are saying not just because he's stupid but because he hasn't the education to know what the words mean. So you simplify, backstep, take the time and effort to define the terms and to speak very simply to help educate him on the basic terminology and the very most basic summary of science's aim (that it isn't a conspiracy, for example). He refuses to learn and continues employing not only his own language, but quotes dictionary.com to support his own personal ideas. So you say with some exasperation that dialogue is impossible with a person who continues to display their illiteracy and obstinacy and you explain why using the same language is necessary for understanding. He misses the point (the necessity for using the same language) and focusses an entire harangue on the crudity and argumentative incapacity of people who "must resort" to personal attacks.

I think sarcasm and insults are legitimate in debate so long as you explain them, so long as you are using it as part of the attack on their position or argumentative style (or lack thereof). Am I right or wrong? Is there a site where it is explained that not every "rudeness" is an argumentum ad hominem?

Thanks

conkermaniac

Calling someone illiterate and incapable of understanding what you are saying out of frustration is perfectly fine in an informal debate. Excessive insults, however, should be avoided at all costs. I was in a debate with one member in the Political Discussions forum, and I ended up cutting the debate because he never addressed any of my points and he resorted to using personal attacks and foul language in every response. That's inappropriate behavior, but if you swear or insult your adversary once or twice out of frustration, I don't see any problem with that.

Evolutionist

sometimes your opponent (i find this mostly with creationists and fundies actually) can be so deliberately obtuse that they have it comming. do try to not do it too often though. resorting to ad hominem attacks simply means you've run out of valid points. and its a personal source of pride that its always them who resort to continuous ad hominem first...

Nowhere357

If you are hopeful to resolve some issues (else why debate?) then no, it is a mistake and drives a wedge. It's hard to take abuse and not return it, but I think the lurkers can see the difference.

But if someone takes some incoming and decides to flame back, well that's good clean fun also. Lord knows the some people deserve it.

When I first joined the Theology Web, I unknowingly stepped into the middle of a widespread flame war. For asking questions, I was attacked without mercy. I stayed steady and reasonable (this required multiple edits before posting!) and eventually I received several apologies, apologetic prayer threads were started (they felt guilty), and I received a couple handfuls of pearls. Except for a few ridiculus malcontents (mostly hardass intolerant creationists, and one or two burned out atheists), the tone there improved and has stayed improved.

For the most part, I would say that invective and insults serve to hurt the poster's position. Who wants to listen to or admit error to a jerk? Again, my position changes slightly if the other side fires first - it would be better to stay steady, though it's understandable to flame back.

Bill Snedden

This seems like an interesting discussion, but it really doesn't seem to belong in Philosophy. I'm going to move it to Miscellaneous Discussions because:

1) I'm not sure where else it might fit
2) I think it will possibly get a wider audience there

Thanks!

Bill Snedden

Wiploc

Ask yourself why you are debating.

If someone keeps changing positions and definitions in order to avoid being pinnned down, he probably isn't open to persuasion. He may be trying to just take up your time or see how frustrated he can make you, but he isn't going to see reason.

1. If you are there to persuade him, insult will not help.

2. If you are there for his entertainment, insult will let him know he has scored on you.

But maybe you want to debate a troll even though not for his illumination or entertainment; maybe you're hoping that a bystander will see that you are the one with right on your side. In that case, you want to be rational, calm, polite, and well-balanced. You want to seem like the nice guy. To bring a bystander across, you have to be both emotionally and intellectually appealing. He has to like you, and see that you are on solid ground. Therefore,

3. Resort to insult if you want bystanders to think the jerks are on your side.

Do you remember the Perot/Gore debate, where Perot got a little pissed off, just for a sentence or two, and lost half his support in that moment? If not, you can think of other examples. Who do you find most persuasive on these boards? Think of names. Those are not the names of red-faced screamers.

Think how much better off the free-thinkers would be if William Lane Craig would occasionally get frustrated and just, I don't know, walk over to his opponent, turn around, stick his rump out and fart at him. Ha! Whose side would the undecideds take then?

crc

Defiant Heretic

I should probably point out that not all personal attacks are actually ad hominems. An ad-hom is when you state that your opponent's conclusion is wrong because he's a worthless slack-jawed, semi-literate excuse for a multicellular organism who couldn't figure out how to toggle a light-switch without first consulting an expert who's able to explain it using shiny, shiny pictures. As long as that characterization isn't relevant to your argument, it's not an ad hominem.

However, such a response may be considered to be in bad taste during particularly formal debates.

HaysooChreesto!

A classy way to score points while subtley calling your opponents ability into question is to wait for them to finish a counterpoint and then say, "Yeah? Well blow it out your ass". Works every time.

Wiploc

In formal debates, this has to be rendered as, "Blow it out your ear."

crc

Catseye

I usually manage to be pretty patient, and not actually type a lot of the insults I'm thinking. (This is often managed by sinking my teeth into my keyboard in frustration while mentally repeating 'Think of the lurkers, think of the lurkers...') You come off looking far better if you can stay calm and stick to the argument in question while your opponent's resorting to the 'You're obviously just far too stupid to understand my masterful point!' lines.

Sometimes, though, when your opponent has deliberately misread the last ten points you made despite your long and patient attempts to explain yourself, it's just too difficult. I've found myself typing 'Is my font difficult for you to read, maybe?' and 'Do you want me to explain it with smaller words?' a couple of times, when I thought I was behaving myself impeccably. And yet, the only times I've been accused of insulting my opponent are times when I honestly haven't been - calmly and politely explaining 'I'd be happy to debate this with you, but you have some very large misconceptions of what 'evolution' means,' for example. Odd, that.