Abstract
In popular usage and many textbooks on reasoning, the argument ad hominem is defined as a personal attack on one’s opponent, which is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Because it is a diversion, substituting personal for substantive argument, it is defined as a fallacy per se. As is often the case in informal reasoning, however, it is not as simple as that. Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacies, and in not all situations is the ad hominem inappropriate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baker, J.A., III. (2001). Bush v. Gore: The fateful rulings. New York Times, July 7 (p. A24).
Berke, R.L. (2000). Angry Republicans vow bitter fight. In Correspondents of the New York Times, 36 Days: The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis (pp. 268–69). New York: Times Books.
Dershowitz, A.M. (2001). Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Dionne, E.J., Jr., and Kristol, W., ed. (2001). Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Ferguson, R. A. (1990). The judicial opinion as literary genre. Yale Journal of Law and the Hhumanities, 2, 201–19.
Gillman, H. (2001). The Votes that Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Greenhouse, L. (2000). Another kind of bitter split. In Dionne and Kristol (pp. 296–99).
Johnstone, H.W., Jr. (1959). Philosophy and Argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.
Kaplan, D.A. (2001). The Accidental President. New York: William Morrow.
Posner, R.A. (2001). Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Prosise, T.O., and Smith, C.A. (2001). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore: A rhetoric of inconsistency. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 4, 605–32.
Shogan, R. (2001). Bad News: Where the Press Goes Wrong in the Making of the President. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Toobin, J. (2001). Too Close to Call. New York: Random House.
Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. (2001). Searching for the roots of the circumstantial ad hominem. Argumentation, 15, 207–21.
Zarefsky, D. (2002). The structure of argument in Bush v. Gore. In G.T. Goodnight, ed., Arguing Communication & Culture (pp. 537–45). Washington: National Communication Association.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zarefsky, D. (2003). Felicity Conditions For The Circumstantial ad Hominem . In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive