The Personal Attack: The Logical Fallacy of Argumentum

The term ad hominem is a Latin phrase that translates to against the man (Ad hominem). It is one of several logical fallacies that may appear (intentionally or otherwise) in the rhetorical mode of writing or speaking known as Argument. The use of the ad hominem indicates that an argumentation (or counter-argument) is focusing not on the issue or progress to, but on the issues presenter, and it for the most part takes the form of a personal onset of the presenters character (Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies).The soundest ad hominem attacks are made up of two steps. The first step is to discredit the speaker/presenter/sponsor, and the stake step is to imply that because the speaker/presenter/sponsor is a bad person, the issue or cause must be bad as well (Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies).For example, prior to the last local anaesthetic election, I attended a debate between two city council candidates regarding a public shoal affixation paper measure. Having read about the issue, I was aware that the facts proved the bonds cost would farther outweigh the anticipated minimal benefitsbenefits that had not been shown to occur in similar communities. I had seen no license to support any logical argument to encourage citizens to support the bond issue, so I was not surprised when one candidate turned the factual debate into a personal attack of his opponent.The argument that his opponent had no school-aged children and because of this, his opponent has no vested interest in the success or trouble of the communitys public school system. Obviously the candidate who was attacking his opponent (via the ad hominem) hoped that lot would equate his opponents lacking school-aged children with an inability to assess a public school bond issue properly.The logical counter to this fallacious argument would be to return the focus to the facts ifpassed, would the school bond result in improvements or would it not? If passed, would thecosts of the school bond b e worth the benefits or not? I would quickly point out that whether ornot one has children has no direction on ones ability to assess the fiscal impact of a set of facts,and I would add to that, that if this were a logical supposition, that only those who had childrenshould be allowed to vote on the bond issue as obviously only those with children havethe capacity to make a sound decision in this area.ReferencesAd hominem. (2000). In The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Boston Houghton Mifflin.Introduction to ad hominem fallacies. (n.d.). charge Critical. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http//www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html