3 ms·
I don't think that undermining the speaker is a valid way of arguing. It is irrelevant who states the argument; an argument is as equally as strong whoever make
by murrayh 19y ago
I don't think that undermining the speaker is a valid way of arguing. It is irrelevant who states the argument; an argument is as equally as strong whoever makes it. I can copy and paste another's argument verbatim, and then change all the "I" references to "person X" references, and the argument would be identical.
What you can do is refute evidence. So if the speaker presents one of their own claims as evidence, you can sometimes invalidate that claim by undermining the speaker's pathos and ethos.
NOTE: When I say valid, I mean it in terms of determining what is correct, not what convinces people.
- astine 19y agoAristotle was speaking in terms of what convinces people. This is only his 'Rhetoric' however. His 'Logic' deals with correct arguments. However, I do think that there are cases where an ad hominem is correct however. If someone's argument is based on his own authority, and his authority is widely acknowledged, then the only way to attack the argument is to attack the arguer. One example is the repeated misuse of Einstein as an authority om things like economics or theology.