This segment you posted is a prime example of the argument-is-war metaphor (Palczewski et. al 95). Don’t you just loathe watching these things when people talk over and past each other?!
End rant. I actually want to focus on the topic of ad hominem attacks, which are “arguments against the person making the claim that are irrelevant to the claim” (Palczewski et. al 105). In the video clip, Bill O’Reilly expressed concern that by walking away from the Fox news debate, Donald Trump was “giving up an opportunity” to convince people that he wants to improve America. As I understand it, the main issue O’Reilly tried to emphasize was that of tactics: was boycotting the debate really that great of a political strategy? What could have been an interesting discussion on symbolic action spiraled into a series of personal defenses/attacks. Trump argued that he was treated wrongly and portrayed himself almost like a media victim. The implications of Trump’s defense could actually work as an ad hominem attack; Trump implied the poor character of the people “slighting” him, using this poor character as the basis of his argument to boycott the debate. In other words: the poor character invalidates the experience of the debate—which is essentially argument2. And if ad hominem should usually be avoided in argument1, does this not apply to argument2 as well?
Notice that I just said “ad hominem should *usually* be avoided.” Our text makes the point that sometimes “[w]hen a question of character is at issue…ad hominem arguments become relevant” (Palczewski et. al 106). In regards to the issue of political strategy, Trump’s implicit ad hominem argument was irrelevant. O’Reilly, however, after noting that people elect presidents based on *policy* and *person,* presented a relevant ad hominem argument: “Would you say, that right now, Donald Trump is a person who can let petty things…influence him to the extent that he doesn’t do what maybe he should do?” Keep in mind, though, this ad hominem became relevant after O’Reilly set the framework to make it so. Do you think that ad hominem becomes relevant/irrelevant largely due to the *framing* of an issue?
This segment you posted is a prime example of the argument-is-war metaphor (Palczewski et. al 95). Don’t you just loathe watching these things when people talk over and past each other?!
ReplyDeleteEnd rant. I actually want to focus on the topic of ad hominem attacks, which are “arguments against the person making the claim that are irrelevant to the claim” (Palczewski et. al 105). In the video clip, Bill O’Reilly expressed concern that by walking away from the Fox news debate, Donald Trump was “giving up an opportunity” to convince people that he wants to improve America. As I understand it, the main issue O’Reilly tried to emphasize was that of tactics: was boycotting the debate really that great of a political strategy? What could have been an interesting discussion on symbolic action spiraled into a series of personal defenses/attacks. Trump argued that he was treated wrongly and portrayed himself almost like a media victim. The implications of Trump’s defense could actually work as an ad hominem attack; Trump implied the poor character of the people “slighting” him, using this poor character as the basis of his argument to boycott the debate. In other words: the poor character invalidates the experience of the debate—which is essentially argument2. And if ad hominem should usually be avoided in argument1, does this not apply to argument2 as well?
Notice that I just said “ad hominem should *usually* be avoided.” Our text makes the point that sometimes “[w]hen a question of character is at issue…ad hominem arguments become relevant” (Palczewski et. al 106). In regards to the issue of political strategy, Trump’s implicit ad hominem argument was irrelevant. O’Reilly, however, after noting that people elect presidents based on *policy* and *person,* presented a relevant ad hominem argument: “Would you say, that right now, Donald Trump is a person who can let petty things…influence him to the extent that he doesn’t do what maybe he should do?” Keep in mind, though, this ad hominem became relevant after O’Reilly set the framework to make it so. Do you think that ad hominem becomes relevant/irrelevant largely due to the *framing* of an issue?