Advertisement

Felicity Conditions For The Circumstantial ad Hominem

The Case of Bush v. Gore
  • David Zarefsky
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 8)

Abstract

In popular usage and many textbooks on reasoning, the argument ad hominem is defined as a personal attack on one’s opponent, which is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Because it is a diversion, substituting personal for substantive argument, it is defined as a fallacy per se. As is often the case in informal reasoning, however, it is not as simple as that. Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacies, and in not all situations is the ad hominem inappropriate.

Keywords

Presidential Election Personal Attack Equal Protection Safe Harbor Electoral Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, J.A., III. (2001). Bush v. Gore: The fateful rulings. New York Times, July 7 (p. A24).Google Scholar
  2. Berke, R.L. (2000). Angry Republicans vow bitter fight. In Correspondents of the New York Times, 36 Days: The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis (pp. 268–69). New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  3. Dershowitz, A.M. (2001). Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dionne, E.J., Jr., and Kristol, W., ed. (2001). Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson, R. A. (1990). The judicial opinion as literary genre. Yale Journal of Law and the Hhumanities, 2, 201–19.Google Scholar
  6. Gillman, H. (2001). The Votes that Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Greenhouse, L. (2000). Another kind of bitter split. In Dionne and Kristol (pp. 296–99).Google Scholar
  8. Johnstone, H.W., Jr. (1959). Philosophy and Argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, D.A. (2001). The Accidental President. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  10. Posner, R.A. (2001). Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  11. Prosise, T.O., and Smith, C.A. (2001). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore: A rhetoric of inconsistency. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 4, 605–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shogan, R. (2001). Bad News: Where the Press Goes Wrong in the Making of the President. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.Google Scholar
  13. Toobin, J. (2001). Too Close to Call. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  14. Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  15. Walton, D. (2001). Searching for the roots of the circumstantial ad hominem. Argumentation, 15, 207–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zarefsky, D. (2002). The structure of argument in Bush v. Gore. In G.T. Goodnight, ed., Arguing Communication & Culture (pp. 537–45). Washington: National Communication Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Zarefsky

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations