commentary on internet debate strategy

[rbirds]

Let's see - name calling or ad hominem example:

stephendare opines: " the guy seems to have a small ax to grind and a product to sell". No evidence of this is given and no argument supporting the claim is offered. The claim is made to refute the original argument via the shortcut of discrediting the author.  Classic example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

stephendare offers his opinion on the study and how it conflicts with his own vision of what OneSpark intends to be. Name calling weakens rather than strengthens his argument.  Completely unnecessary and just wanton ill-will.

The "sour grapes" remark would be another example but the comment's author went on to explain what he meant by that so at least an explanation was offered.

Ad hominem attacks are standard fare in Internet discussions but it is worth pointing out from time to time.

[rbirds]

I'm sorry to hijack this conversation away from the original subject to a personal exchange about an unrelated topic but here I am doing just that.

stephendare's reply to me addresses many points but not the one I was attempting to make.

Internet exchanges often bristle with exaggerated rhetoric, dramatically expressed opinions and animosity. An often-used technique in such emotional exchanges is to attack the character of the individual rather than to address the argument itself. Rather than trying to disprove the argument one simply attempts to undermine the character of the person making the argument.

In the post cited as an example of "ad hominem" stephendare suggests chrismarkl [the author of the study being discussed] begins the post with an assessment of Markl's motives "the guy seems to have a small ax to grind and a product to sell". That is, stephendare suggests to his readers, Markl's analysis is not a serious one and Markl's intention in producing the analysis is not "to begin a discussion about One Spark's impact." [from Markl's "One Spark Impact"]

stephendare's post continues with his own interpretation of the goal of One Spark which differs from Markl's. stephendare states his differing opinion on One Spark's goal but does not offer any insight on how he reached the conclusion  that chrismarkl created his analysis for the reason of self promotion and because of some personal negative feeling about One Spark.

He suggests we should ignore chrismarkl's analysis of One Spark because, in part, chrismarkl is less interested in accurately analyzing the impact of One Spark then he is in expressing some sort of personal distress about One Spark ["a small ax to grind"] and because he wishes to use this incorrect analysis to promote his company ["the guy seems to have...a product to sell"].

This is a personal attack, sometimes called in the literature of logical fallacies a "ad personem" argument - the argument at issue is not addressed and the character ["ax to grind"] or circumstances [he has "a product to sell"] is used to influence opinion against both the arguer and the argument.

No analysis of chrismarkl's analysis is offered other than a rejection of it ["a bit of a sleight of hand" and "It's a red herring."]

The original comment by stephendare meets the criteria for an ad hominem attack. 

As far as the ill will interpretation of using ad hominem attacks - I don't know what else one may call the suggestion that what chrismarkl is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or circumstance and so should be disregarded could be other than ill will.

Sorry for the length and for hijacking the conversation.

[InnerCityPressure]

It's no fun sifting through petty arguments in my quiet 1/2 hour before work.  This would be an improved community without the bickering.