Page 195 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 195
the political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 195
frequent use of argumentum ad hominem which can be considered as the
main difference in the argumentation between opponents and support-
ers of the EU. In contrast, Europhiles almost never attacked their oppo-
nent’s character.
Copi and Cohen (1990: 97) explain ad hominem as follows:
It is very common in rough-and-tumble argument to disparage the charac-
ter of the opponents, to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to ques-
tion their integrity and so on. But the personal character of an individual is
logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or the
correctness or incorrectness of that person’s argument.
Contemporary research in argumentation theory, however, recog-
nizes that there is a “good” argumentum ad hominem:
A good ad hominem bases a claim on premises that show that someone is
in some way unreliable. The version of ad hominem we call an ‘argument
against authority’ argues that a person is not a reliable authority and should
not, therefore, be taken seriously. [...] It is important to distinguish ad hom-
inem attacks that discredit a person’s position because of their character
from attacks on the person alone. The latter is often called an abusive ad
hominem because it does little more than hurl abuse. (Groarke and Tindale,
2013: 320)
Therefore, argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious; it
might be considered as a legitimate argument which is “relevant to the
conclusion of the argument when the person in question is supposed to
be an expert” (Mizrahi, 2010: 438). However, in our case study the argu-
ments used by opponents to the EU are instances of the abusive ad homi-
nem, and so logically irrelevant for a critical discussion. They are instanc-
es of what Woods calls “slanging.” “Slanging is a rhetorical device, as old
as the hills. Its objective is to expose, embarrass, ridicule, mock, calum-
niate or humiliate one’s opponent, typically with the intent of rattling
him dialectically” (Woods, 2007: 109).
Our analysis of speakers protesting against the EU evidences the us-
age of a number of abusive ad hominem arguments.
frequent use of argumentum ad hominem which can be considered as the
main difference in the argumentation between opponents and support-
ers of the EU. In contrast, Europhiles almost never attacked their oppo-
nent’s character.
Copi and Cohen (1990: 97) explain ad hominem as follows:
It is very common in rough-and-tumble argument to disparage the charac-
ter of the opponents, to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to ques-
tion their integrity and so on. But the personal character of an individual is
logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or the
correctness or incorrectness of that person’s argument.
Contemporary research in argumentation theory, however, recog-
nizes that there is a “good” argumentum ad hominem:
A good ad hominem bases a claim on premises that show that someone is
in some way unreliable. The version of ad hominem we call an ‘argument
against authority’ argues that a person is not a reliable authority and should
not, therefore, be taken seriously. [...] It is important to distinguish ad hom-
inem attacks that discredit a person’s position because of their character
from attacks on the person alone. The latter is often called an abusive ad
hominem because it does little more than hurl abuse. (Groarke and Tindale,
2013: 320)
Therefore, argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious; it
might be considered as a legitimate argument which is “relevant to the
conclusion of the argument when the person in question is supposed to
be an expert” (Mizrahi, 2010: 438). However, in our case study the argu-
ments used by opponents to the EU are instances of the abusive ad homi-
nem, and so logically irrelevant for a critical discussion. They are instanc-
es of what Woods calls “slanging.” “Slanging is a rhetorical device, as old
as the hills. Its objective is to expose, embarrass, ridicule, mock, calum-
niate or humiliate one’s opponent, typically with the intent of rattling
him dialectically” (Woods, 2007: 109).
Our analysis of speakers protesting against the EU evidences the us-
age of a number of abusive ad hominem arguments.
