The article discusses the ad hominem logical fallacy, which targets a person's character instead of addressing their argument. Historical examples show it used by figures like Winston Churchill and Cicero. While ad hominem is frowned upon in academia for undermining civil debate, it can serve rhetorical purposes. The piece also suggests alternative strategies, such as employing third parties or paralipsis for more effective argumentation, tracing the balance between rhetorical effectiveness and formal debate ethics.
In academic circles, the ad hominem is regarded as a logical fallacy and frowned upon. It is uncivil, it stifles debate, and it is a tacit admission that you are losing the argument.
Even so, when attacking an opponent, it is better to put one's words into the mouth of some third person, or to use paralipsis, as Cicero did in his speech Pro Caelio.
Collection
[
|
...
]