Abstract
This article explores the modalities by which referring to past discursive performance of adversaries within a continuous polemical exchange is used in ad hominem attacks. Our starting point holds that in the context of lengthy debates, participants and third-party listeners share a rhetorical memory, which, dynamic and subjective as it may be, allows for the evaluation of participants’ characters based on their perceived discursive performances. By analysing opinion articles related to the Israeli political debate, this study shows how drawing inference from adversaries’ prior statements and conduct is used to compromise their credibility as participants in the polemical exchange. It is found that, alongside supporting arguments from inconsistent commitment, previous discursive performance is mobilized to discredit speakers’ epistemic authority (by demonstrating how the adversary’s prior statements were false) and their moral legitimacy (by demonstrating that the adversary failed to act as a fair interlocutor).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Shimon Peres, Amir Peretz and Yuli Tamir, among the most prominent leaders of Israel’s political left, have been closely identified with the diplomatic activity towards a peace agreement and for their support of territorial compromise.
Yoel Marcus and Dan Margalit, among Israel’s senior reporters, have both expressed their support for territorial withdrawals and most of all for the IDF’s retreat from Southern Lebanon and the Disengagement from the Gaza strip.
Major General and politician affiliated with the Israeli right.
For an overview and analysis of intellectual virtue in ad hominem, see Battaly (2010).
On bias ad hominem and dialogical attitude, see Macagno (2013).
References
Amossy, Ruth. 1999. The Argument Ad Hominem in an Interactional Perspective. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Argumentation, 14–18. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Amossy, Ruth. 2001. Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology. Poetics Today 22(1): 1–23.
Amossy, Ruth. 2005. The Argumentative Dimension of Discourse. In Argumentation in Practice, ed. Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Amossy, Ruth. 2009. Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments. Informal Logic 29(3): 252–267.
Amossy, Ruth. 2010. The Functions of Polemical Discourse in the Public Sphere. In The Responsibilities of Rhetoric, ed. Michelle Smith and Barbara Warnick, 52–61. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Battaly, Heather. 2010. Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology. Informal Logic 30(4): 361–390.
Brinton, Alan. 1985. A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 50–63.
Brinton, Alan. 1986. Ethotic Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 3(3): 245–258.
Budzynska, Katarzyna, and Maciej Witek. 2014. Non-inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation 28(3): 301–315.
Garand, Dominique. 2007. La Fonction de L’ethos dans la Formation du Discours Conflictuel. In Invectives et Violences Verbales dans le Discours, ed. Marie-Hélène Larochelle, 4–19. Québec: Presses de l’Université de Laval.
Govier, Trudy. 2010. A Practical Study of Argument, 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hinman, Lawrence M. 1982. The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60(4): 338–345.
Leff, Michael. 2009. Perelman, ad Hominem Argument, and Rhetorical Ethos. Argumentation 23(3): 301–311.
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2013. Strategies of Character Attack. Argumentation 27(4): 369–401.
McCaffrey, Dawn, and Jennifer Keys. 2000. Competitive Framing Processes in the Abortion Debate: Polarization-Vilification, Frame Saving, and Frame Debunking. The Sociological Quarterly 41(1): 41–61.
Patrick, Brian Anse. 2006. Group Ethos and the Communication of Social Action. Small Group Research 37(5): 425–458.
Plantin, Christian. 2003. Des Polémistes aux Polémiqueurs. In La Parole Polémique, ed. Gilles Declercq, Michel Murat, and Jacqueline Dangel, 377–408. Paris: Champion.
Rohlinger, Deana A. 2002. Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics. Sociological Quarterly 43(4): 479–507.
Rolf, Bertil. 1991. Credibility. The Art of Being Trustworthy. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (June 19–22, 1990), ed. Gilles Declercq, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 377–408. Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Salmon, Wesley C. 1963. Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Simons, Herbert W. 1982. Genres, Rules, and Collective Rhetorics: Applying the Requirements-Problems-Strategies Approach. Communication Quarterly 30(3): 181–188.
van Emeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1987. fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.
van Emeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. Argumentation 6(2): 141–159.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1993. The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century. In Empirical Logic and Public Debate. Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth, ed. Eric C.W. Krabbe, Rénée José Dalitz, and Pier A. Smit, 4–19. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
van Emeren, Frans H., Bert Meuffels, and Mariël Verburg. 2000. The (un)Reasonableness of Ad Hominem Fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19(4): 416–435.
Vanderford, Marsha L. 1989. Vilification and Social Movements: A Case Study of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech 75(2): 166–182.
Walton, D. 2013. Argument from Analogy in Legal Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21(3): 279–302.
Walton, D. 2005. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. 1998. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. 1989. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wei, Yong-Kang. 2002. Corporate Image as Collective Ethos: A Poststructuralist Approach. Corporate Communication 7(4): 269–276.
Primary Sources
Avital, Gabi. 2006. Which of us is the Sane One? Maariv, July 20.
Dan, Uri. 2006. A Predetermined Outcome of War. Maariv, July 13.
Eldad, Arieh. 2006. Blindness. Maariv—Shabbat Supplement, July 7, 2006, p. 12.
Eldad, Arieh. 2006. The Failure. Maariv—Shabbat Supplement, July 21.
Goldstein, Dov. 2006. Sorry for not Winning. Maariv, August 20.
Haetzni, Elyakim. 2006. You Promised a Dove and Got a Katyusha. Yedioth Aharonot, August 7.
Haetzni, Nadav. 2006. The New Jewish Invention. Maariv—The Sabbath Supplement, July 28.
Harel, Israel. 2006. Back to Reality. Haaretz, 13 July.
Orbach, Uri. 2006a. Leftist Wisdom. Yedioth Ahronoth—The Sabbath Supplement, July 7, 2006.
Orbach, Uri. 2006b. Ready, Steady, Fire. Yedioth Ahronoth, July 21, 2006.
Porat, Uri. Where have We Gone Wrong? Yedioth Ahronoth, August 14, 2006.
Segal, Erel. 2006. It’s Very Clear. Maariv—Weekend, August 4.
Shragai, Nadav. 2006a. The Open Wound of Gush Katif. Haaretz, August 2.
Shragai, Nadav. 2006b. We have Earned it Fair and Square. Haaretz, July 16.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Orkibi, E. Precedential Ad Hominem in Polemical Exchange: Examples from the Israeli Political Debate. Argumentation 32, 485–499 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9453-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9453-2