Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategies of Character Attack

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Why are personal attacks so powerful? In political debates, speeches, discussions and campaigns, negative character judgments, aggressive charges and charged epithets are used for different purposes. They can block the dialogue, trigger value judgments and influence decisions; they can force the interlocutor to withdraw a viewpoint or undermine his arguments. Personal attacks are not only multifaceted dialogical moves, but also complex argumentative strategies. They can be considered as premises for further arguments based on signs, generalizations or consequences. They involve tactics for arousing emotions such as fear, hate or contempt, or for ridiculing the interlocutor. The twofold level of investigation presented in this paper is aimed at distinguishing the different roles that ad hominem have in a dialogue and bringing to light their hidden dimensions. The reasoning structure of each type of attack will be distinguished from the tactics used to increase its effectiveness and conceal its weaknesses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Saint Just is the representative of the people during the French revolution (Robespierre granted him large powers, see Dumas 2001: 55–56). He is interrogating Charles, a child that has been arrested because was occupying the room of an alleged traitor.

  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMCigfbndZI&feature=related, at 0:41–1:37 (author’s translation). Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdlVNM6cSfU at 5:50-6:30 (author’s translation). Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IC4RJz4Oqo&feature=related at 3:08–3:33 (author’s translation). Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IC4RJz4Oqo&feature=related at 3:08–3:33 (author’s translation). Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  6. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmstand/output/pbc116/pb110215a-07.htm. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hekruRq14JU at 0:28–0:36 (author’s translation). Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  8. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x40ln3_2008-sarkozy-mr-joffrin-monarchie_news 1:17–1:35 (author’s translation). Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  9. http://www.theawl.com/2011/11/mitt-v-newt-tonights-debate-could-be-the-heritage-foundations-nightmare. Last accessed on 19 September 2012.

  10. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/newt-gingrichs-changing-stance-on-health-care-mandates-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/09/gIQAVl0lkO_blog.html. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  11. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/us/politics/gingrichs-health-care-policy-history-at-odds-with-gop.html?pagewanted=all. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-freddie-mac_n_1240203.html; http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-27/news/30670814_1_florida-polls-freddie-mac-debate. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  13. http://24ahead.com/gop-debate-january-26-2012-cnn-romney-gingrich-santorum-ron. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  14. “And why should I, the counsel for the defense, ask him questions, since the course to be taken with respect to witnesses is either to invalidate their testimony or to impeach their characters? But by what discussion can I refute the evidence of men who say, "We gave," and no more? Am I then to make a speech against the man, when my speech can find no room for argument? What can I say against an utter stranger?” (Ciceronis Pro Flacco X, 23).

  15. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney_n_1237321.html?ref=elections-2012. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  16. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Gingrich-romney-florida-primary/2012/01/22/id/425084. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  17. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/romney-gingrich-begin-attack/2011/11/30/id/419541. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  18. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/ap-palins-ayers-attack-ra_n_132008.html. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  19. http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/789291/bush_talks_about_iraq_saddam_execution/. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

  20. http://www.flcgil.it/attualita/sindacato/con-la-scusa-dei-fannulloni-il-ministro-brunetta-attacca-i-diritti-di-tutti-i-lavoratori.flc. Last accessed on 19 September 2012.

  21. http://www.economist.com/node/12009720. Last accessed on 15 June 2012.

  22. http://reagan2020.us/speeches/state_of_the_union_1983.asp. Last accessed on 14 June 2012.

References

  • Aristotle. 1984a. Topica. In The works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes (trans: Pickard-Cambridge W. A.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Aristotle 1984b. Rhetorica. In The works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes (trans: Rhys Roberts, W.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Battaly, H. 2010. Attacking character: Ad hominem argument and virtue epistemology. Informal logic 30(4): 361–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ze’ev, A. 2000. The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, I. 2006. The effect of emotion on interpretation and logic in a conditional reasoning task. Memory and cognition 34: 1112–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, I., and A. Richards. 2004. Reasoning about emotional and neutral materials: Is logic affected by emotion? Psychological Science 15: 745–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, C. 2003. Prosecutorial misconduct: recognizing errors in closing argument. American Journal of trial advocacy 26: 535–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M.T. 1977. In Catilinam I-IV; Pro Murena; Pro Sulla; Pro Flacco. (trans MacDonald, C.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Doerksen, S., and A. Shimamura. 2001. Source memory enhancement for emotional words. Emotion 1(1): 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, A. 2001. The whites and the blues. (trans: Morlock, F.). Amsterdam: Fredonia Books.

  • Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groarke, L. 2011. Emotional arguments: ancient and contemporary views. In Proceedings of the seventh conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. van Eemeren F.H., B.J. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell, Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD-ROM.

  • Hitchcock, D. 2007. Why there is no argumentum ad hominem fallacy. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 615–620. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdgraves, T. 2008. Language as social action. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone Jr, H.W. 1996. Lock and Whately on the argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation 10: 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, F. 1998. Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 12: 245–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E. 2003. Metadialogues. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, ChA Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 83–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, L., J. Haddad, and W.A. Maesen. 1976. Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory. In Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications, ed. A.J. Chapman and H.C. Foot, 63–91. London: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. P. Drew, and J. Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and rhetoric 42(2): 154–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2010a. The argumentative uses of emotive language. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1: 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2010b. What we hide in words: Emotive words and persuasive definitions. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1997–2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzoni, A. 2007. I promessi sposi, the Betrothed. New York: Wildside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. 2000. Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Communication theory 10(3): 310–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1951. Act and person in argument. Ethics 61(4): 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L. 1974. Knowledge and justification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigotti, E. 2006. Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation 20: 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigotti, E., and S. Cigada. 2004. La comunicazione verbale. Milano: Apogeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigotti, E., and A. Rocci. 2006. Towards a definition of communication context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. Studies in communication sciences 6(2): 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocci A. 2005. Connective predicates in dialogic and monologic argumentation. In Argumentation in dialogic interaction. Studies in communication sciences, Special issue eds. M. Dascal, F.H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, S. Stati, and A. Rocci, 97–118.

  • Smith, C., and B. Voth. 2002. The role of humor in political argument: How “Strategery” and “Lockboxes” changed a political campaign. Argumentation and advocacy 39: 110–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. Argumentum ad hominem: A pragma-dialectical case in point. In Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 223–228. University Park: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock and D. Farr, 75–84. Hamilton, ON: OSSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., B. Meuffels, and M. Verburg. 2000. The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies. Journal of language and social psychology 19: 419–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderveken, D. 1990. Meaning and speech acts. Vols. I and II.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa, London: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to pity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1998a. Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1998b. The new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2001. Searching for the roots of the circumstantial ad hominem. Argumentation 15: 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whately, R. 1975. Elements of logic. Delmar, NY: Scholars Facsimiles and Reprints.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D., C. Miller-Tutzaur, and F. Titzuar. 1984. Reagan’s safety net for the truly needy: the rhetorical uses of definition. Central states speech 35: 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for the research grant on Argumentation, Communication and Context (PTDC/FIL-FIL/110117/2009) that supported the work in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ArgLab, Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem (IFL), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Edifício I&D, 4 andar, Avenida de Berna 26, 1069-061, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fabrizio Macagno

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Macagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Macagno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macagno, F. Strategies of Character Attack. Argumentation 27, 369–401 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation