Turn on your TV, or your smartphone, or overhear any random, nearby conversation for two minutes, and you’ll be reassured that one certain trend has completely overtaken communication at all levels: polarization. All of this is, of course, because of certain institutions that create it, like news and politics. Middle ground appears as though it is beginning to erode away, because it is just not as marketable or interesting as extreme personalities with extreme views.
This, of course, has come with numerous negative consequences. One of the most prominent problems, perhaps the most concerning as well, is the sudden surge in usage of ad hominem and personal attacks in places where arguments and facts should be.
Merriam-Webster defines the Latin term “ad hominem” as being “marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.” In other words, when someone mocks instead of debating, offends instead of arguing, silences instead of discussing, that’s an ad hominem argument.
Neither personal attacks nor the usage of ad hominem should appear in your arguments, but it’s important to address that the latter has become more frequent in recent years. More and more I am seeing people, whether they be students, faculty or otherwise, throw healthy discussion to the wayside and go after people’s character.
But in order to understand the situation, it is necessary to analyze the two main reasons why people would practice ad hominem in the first place. The first reason is a very simple one: it’s really easy. Good argument requires good practice and good research. That can take a lot of time, and sometimes, according to Shay Logan, a postdoctoral teaching scholar at NC State, some cash as well for academic resources. The process is tiring, frustrating and very time-consuming.
On the other hand, all personal attacks require beforehand is a bit of gossip you previously heard in passing, or a quick, extremely judgmental and unfair examination of their appearance, or their personal identity traits.
Another reason someone would practice ad hominem attacks is that, too often, it works, but not in a good way. When your debate opponent clearly has the high ground, when they’re using far superior research and argumentation tactics than what you’re using, I get it, it can be scary. With our backs to the wall, we look for a way out, which, oftentimes, means a personal attack, or a dismissal based on character. Yes, this might make them wish to stop talking with you, but it’s not for the reason you would like. You haven’t gained the high ground, you just sunk too low.
It might seem like the ultimate trump card, but the victory it brings is extremely short-term, and the consequences far outweigh its effectiveness. First, your opponent has probably lost much of their desire to continue their debate with you, or create future discussions, but not because you’ve displayed superior logic and persuasion, but because you’ve shown yourself to be cruel, irrational and immature.
Furthermore, your argument, in the eyes of those involved in the discussion, just lost a big chunk of its credibility. Yes, this itself can also be a fallacy: the fallacy fallacy, meaning that just because someone uses a fallacy, doesn’t mean what they’re arguing is now wrong. Still, it is understandable why people would want to ignore what you have to say from this point forward. Additionally, according to Logan, they certainly won’t desire to change their current stance on the subject. “It won’t shift anyone’s positions, except maybe to more extreme versions of positions they already have,” Logan said.
Finally, to bring up a more historical perspective on this matter, Logan pointed out that ad hominem attacks can exclude people and people groups, as it has in the past. “If we allow certain types of ad hominem, it excludes people from debates,” Logan said. “Historically speaking, this was very strong way of excluding minorities from debates. This was a very strong way of excluding people with disabilities from debates.”
NC State has students and faculty from all over the world and from all different types of people groups. To exclude these people’s opinions solely based on certain aspects of their identity goes against every value our university holds itself to.
I’m a student studying communication, albeit a new one. Even then, despite my relative inexperience in the field, I have already learned many of the core principles required to foster healthy, effective communication, including this: to share information and change the opinions of others, respect is a must. To this end, ad hominem will get you, and our university, nowhere.
