Ad Hominem: Arguing against the person rather than the position they hold.
You’ll see this being argued against a lot in religious conversations, but politics owns the rights to this tactic, and Leftists make an art form out of this method of argumentation.
Whether in religious or political conversation, such is typically employed by those who are unable to formulate a knowledgeable, relevant, contextual, well-studied, and constructive argument against the position offered.
This occurs due to presuppositional bias against the person or position in question.
When entering a conversation with a Leftist on anything said or done by Hillary Clinton, the Leftist is in full defense mode before the conversation begins: due to their presuppositional bias of Hillary, and will almost always begin their engagement with an attack on the person, rather than their statement/belief about Hillary.
I despise non-arguments so much, I created an acronym to describe them:
These are arguments of distraction, evasion, avoidance, and deflection; anything that can be employed, to not directly address the argument being offered.
Such arguments are D.O.A. – Dead On Arrival, because they do not address the argument offered.
Sadly, far too many times; and for far too many of us, we get caught up in these diversionary arguments, and never get to address the original argument.
I am still guilty of this at times, but I’m getting better at practicing what I preach.
Hold their feet to the fire!
I can’t stress this enough.
Don’t get pulled into their web of D.E.A.D. Arguments.
There are those that do manage to escape the Leftist Statist plantation mindset, and the #walkaway movement proves this, but the majority of these are due to their own experiences with other Leftists, and their willful investigation, and research.
Let’s be honest, 90% of Leftists on the internet are not even interested in discussing any facts or evidence you are offering for your claim, and a good majority of them in public are violent to any level of opposition.
Think of how much more productive our time would be in positive pursuits and efforts, rather than staying bogged down in our attempts to educate those who simply aren’t interested in knowing or learning anything other than “Leftist” group-think.
Any argument that simply seeks to attack a “source” of information, versus a constructive conversation over such information, is a D.E.A.D. Argument, and you’d be more productive smashing your head against a brick wall.
© 2020 J.W. Rafon