"Ad Hominem" Attacks Are the Lowest

When I taught parliamentary debate, I instructed my debaters that ad hominem attacks--that is, attacking one's opponents rather than their arguments--were strictly forbidden. Indeed, in inter-collegiate, competitive debate, contestants can lose points if they verbally attack a member of the opposition with name-calling or any other means. At first, it's difficult for students to learn not to attack their opponents personally. When faced with an argument that they don't understand or can't refute, student debaters often feel the only thing they can do is go after the person who presents the argument. However, most all students learn to control this urge and attack the content of the message--not the messenger--during their first semester.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the rest of the world could learn this simple measure of civility too? We should be able to engage in debates and discussions without calling each other names. Lawmakers and politicians should be able to argue the merits of various proposals without them devolving into clashes of character assassination. Journalists and television pundits ought to be able to present the details of various controversial issues without leveling direct or indirect attacks at proponents or opponents of proposed solutions.

In other words, we ought to be able to have civilized public discourse. We ought to be able to discuss controversial issues and still remain cordial. We ought to be able to work together to solve--rather than just bemoan--problems that affect our country. If beginning college debaters can do it--surely wiser, more experienced adults can too.

Let's avoid ad hominem attacks. Let's bring courtesy back to public debate. What do you say?

( graphic from http://www.foolquest.com/fooltrek_faq/ad_hominem.htm)