Argument ad hominem, argument ad personam i atak osobisty – analiza porównawcza
Ad hominem argument, ad personam argument, and personal attack – a comparative analysis

Summary/Abstract: Many contemporary sources, from online critical thinking courses to logic textbooks by influential authors, seem to miss the important difference between three different concepts: ad hominem arguments, ad personam arguments, and ad personam (personal) attacks. The first of them, for many centuries called ad hominem or ex concessis, refers to what the interlocutor considers to be true or what he admitted in an earlier conversation. The second type appeals to some personal properties of a given person in order to undermine their position. The third, personal attacks, are eristic maneuvers aimed at discrediting or embarrassing the interlocutor. These three concepts warrant precise formulation, and their consistent use seems necessary both in the theory of argumentation and in public discourse. The paper presents argumentation schemes and evaluation criteria for both types of arguments, in accordance with the standards adopted in informal logic. The characteristics of personal attacks, their subtypes and defensive strategies have also been developed. The study is supported by examples from political debate.

• Details
• Contents