issue 08 // volume 41

opinions // 19

 

Do you even argue, bro?

» Using ad hominem is a jerk thing to do

Michael Chmielewski
The Carillon

rguments, as in intellectual :
: been around—it’s important to

: qualify something.

debates, are something to
be cherished. They should be
engaged in actively, especially
in a university setting. Of
course, there are certain
rules of etiquette concerning

argumentation. This etiquette is :
: The ad hominem I’ve noticed

: increasing is a kind that’s

: surprisingly mostly on the

: left of the spectrum amongst
: students.

mostly just avoiding “fallacies,”
or things that weaken an
argument.

One of the most abused
fallacies is ad hominem, where
rather than dealing with what
someone is saying, or the
merits of their argument, their
personality, or character, is
attacked.

In my last three years at
university, I’ve noticed that
this sort of fallacy is increasing
(perhaps I’m just seeing it
more). Ad hominem attacks

: have been around since people
: could speak, so they’re nothing
: new, but it’s no matter if they’re :
: attempt at ad hominem is just
: a distraction method—smoke
: and mirrors.

increasing or they’ve always

These debates usually

: occur in comment sections
: or Facebook, because most
: people aren’t brave enough to

insult someone to their face.

So hardened in their wide-

: eyed beliefs, they usually don’t

: actually tackle the merit of

: the argument, usually trying

: to dismiss it by attacking

: someone’s character, saying

: that they know nothing, or that
: because of their background,

: their argument is invalid.

: Even if the other argument

: has no merit, it would make

: more sense to dismantle the
: argument, not the person

: group amongst the left, and

: not everybody—that’d be

: a generalization, which is

: also fallacious. I’d also like

: to point out that the right of

: the spectrum does it too. Ad

: hominem is found amongst all
: kinds of debaters.

: saw: “You can’t understand

: because you're a man, and you
: can’t talk about it,” or “They’re
: just a bunch of white guys.”

: These dismissals could be

: anything, really, and they're

: usually formulaic. You're X, so
: you can't talk about Y. Once,

: after asking persistent gadfly-
: like questions to someone

: starting a petition that couldn't :

saying it. Otherwise, an

Of course, this is a specific

Two examples I recently

: answer them, I was told,

: “Thisiswhyyoudon't havea:
: girlfriend.” It’s baseless, and it’s :
: meant to distract and sidetrack :
: the debate from the real issues. :

These sorts of

: characterizations do no service :
: to their cause: they alienate

: people and they're a sign

: of weak argumentation; if

: someone is so right, then they

: shouldn't have to resort to this

: tactic. If the opponent is so :
: wrong, then one canattack the :
: merits of their arguments. It

: doesn’t matter who's saying it,

: the strength of an argument

: shouldn’t hinge on the who,

: but rather, the what. Also, if

? someone is so sure that their

: opponent is wrong because

: of their character, then it

: should actually be easy to tear

: their argument apart without

: resorting to insults—right?

Don’t ever let someone
try to attack your character

in an argument. If you're so
wrong because of who you are,
then your opponent should be
smart enough to see it in your
argument. Otherwise, chances
are they can’t defend their point
adequately and are trying to
discredit you to save themselves
the embarrassment.

Also, if you do resort to ad
hominem, please stop. You're
doing no service to anybody,
and should take more pride
in your convictions. Nothing
will be gained from attacking
someone's personality, and
listening to other people’s
points of view may help you to
strengthen your own, or even
change them. If your arguments
are so correct, then you have
nothing to worry about.

Plus, beating someone on point
of fact is much more satisfying
than dragging the debate, and
everyone in it, through the
mud.

 

Have alittle faith in me

» The modern and negative view on religion

Mercedes Deutscher
Staff Writer

*ma Christian, and no, I’m

not out to convert you, tell
you that you're going to hell,
or picket funerals. Yet in the
case of declaring my religious
beliefs, I feel as uneasy as
someone who is coming out as
homosexual.

Kind of a strange
comparison, isn’t it? I fear
persecution for being who I
am. I’m afraid that my legally
protected rights—entrenched

: in Section 2b of the Charter

: of Rights and Freedoms—still
: won't protect me from facing

: rejection from my peers.

There was once a time

when it was okay to be

: religious, as recent as 50 years

: ago. Times have changed, and

: religion has been ostracized

: during an age of social reform.
: Don't mistake me. I’m content
: that we are living in a mostly

: equal society that continues

: to become more inclusive. But
: what has been sacrificed along
: the way?

posting about myreligionon
: Facebook, a friend of mine kept :
; ranting on how I was wrong,

: why my God didn’t exist, and

: that I was a part of a group of

: hateful people. It hasn’t gotten
easier from there.

: There are people who try to

: come from a position of love

: and kindness, partially due to
: their religion, and have been
: criticized because of their

: “imaginary friend.” Members
of Sikh temples have come to

Three years ago, when

I’m not the only one.

: the aid of those who needed
: help, yet are turned away

because they are devoted

: enough to their religion to wear
: turbans. Instead of receiving

: a polite decline ina religious

: conversation, a Mormon elder
is disrespected.

It’s easy to see where many

: anti-religious attitudes come

: from. There is no secret that

: groups like the Westboro

: Baptist Church, the KKK, Al-

: Queda, and ISIS have received
: justified negative attention. It
becomes unjustified when that

: negative attention leaks into

: normal religious groups. Not

: all Christians are opposed to

: certain races, sex, and sexual

: equality, just as not all Muslims
are violent extremists.

If you are an atheist or

: choose not to havea religion,

: that’s not a problem. But

: to belittle and bully people
because they do have a religion
: 1S.

When we coexist instead

of fight over religion (or lack
: of), we can accomplish truly
; amazing things.