Sentences with phrase «ad hominem fallacy»

Like before the use of ad hominem fallacies continue to demonstrate how pathetic these people are at rational debate.

Post by «Juan in El Paso» contains instances of the the ad hominem and circu - mstantial ad hominem fallacies as well as a non sequitur argument.

Because judges have heard these arguments many times before, they treat tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies as distractions.

Instead of complaining about nonexistent ad hominem fallacies and name - calling, SA could answer the question by stating the basis for his claim — as I requested.

Your comment is basically one sweeping ad hominem fallacy (journals are «controlled by «left - wing» academics; therefore they lack credibility and their arguments are invalid), so your disparagement of ad hominem argument is nonsensical.

Post by Ouch contains the circu - mstantial ad hominem fallacy and concludes with the common fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

Those that do are just guilty of an ad hominem fallacy; attacking a person's grammar / spelling instead of the actual point of the comment.

If what you're trying to use here is the ad hominem fallacy - attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument - then the only people you'll convince with this tactic are those who haven't learned to think critically.

Your post in and of itself contains the ad hominem fallacy... haha see how dumb you look?

My point was that you were making logical fallacy by attacking your opponent instead of attacking their argument, which is called an Ad Hominem fallacy.

Post by RFBJR contains instances of the ad hominem fallacy, and the circ - umstantial ad hominem fallacy.

In fact, such an argument would be an ad hominem fallacy that goes something like, «this person is intelligent, this person converted, therefore what this person believes is true.»

As to your false analogy about blindness: when will you silly theists learn that you can't use the ad hominem fallacy and get away with it?

Recent post by «on judgement day» is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy and contains a non sequitur element.

But overall I'm not surprised at the ad hominem fallacies.

Root post by «Founders1791» contains a variety of common fallacies, including instances of the ad hominem fallacy and the the circ - umstantial ad hominem fallacy, as well as Straw Man arguments and non sequiturs.

Root post by «Nii Croffie» contains instances of the ad hominem fallacy, the circ - umstantial ad hominem fallacy, and the Willed Ignorance fallacy.

Enough with the ad hominem fallacy in assuming that there's some «sin» that I don't want to let go of.

Without risking an ad hominem fallacy, you could see through the early launchers of this emotive war, fired from tribal missiles.

I don't care if that was a case of the ad hominem fallacy.

Ante or post publication critics — some lay on the astroturf a little too generously; some lay on the artistic jealousy too heavily, though artfully veiled by emotional - political argumentation appeal (ad hominem fallacy); some rare few find a sincere, warranted, critical proportion of constructive criticism.

Any statement that presents attributes of the person making an argument as a reason to reject that argument is an ad hominem fallacy — calling it an ad hominem «attack» perpetuates the confusion between rhetorical fallacy on one hand, and mere insults and personal attacks on the other.

The ad hominem fallacy, translated from Latin, means personal attack, and often takes the form of: «My client shouldn't have to produce the discovery because the other party lies, cheats, and steals, and, for that matter, its lawyers are dishonest, too.»

Personal attacks in discovery disputes often take the form of tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies.