I agree that ad hominem attacks are overwhelmingly used to evade the responsibility of substantive debate. The problem is that policy debates are not purely obj

I agree that ad hominem attacks are overwhelmingly used to evade the responsibility of substantive debate. The problem is that policy debates are not purely objective and in reality people weigh presented perspectives and evidence according to the perceived credibility of a given source. As a result, information that speaks to the soundness of a person's judgement has a place in policy debate as a means of drawing conclusions in the absence of indisputable facts. We're all placing faith in something that determines what we call truth and what we call lies or ignorance.