When, if ever, is it appropriate to insult your opponent in a scholarly debate, in addition to destroying his arguments?
always
faggot
>implying I don't instantly ressort to ad hominem when I start to stutter in my arguments
>>1233709
What about concern trolls or opponents who are sealioning? I think you should call em out for their behaviour, if that means insulting them go ahead.
>>1233745
>sealioning
Pardon me, I'm unfamiliar with this term, outside of the planned invasion of the UK in 1940 that never got off the ground. What are you using it to mean in this context?
>>1233709
When they make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, or you are already winning.
>>1233709
Resorting to insulting the other person only degrades yourself.
Only if they make dubious claims about themselves, such as, say, describing themselves as an empire, or as Roman, or perhaps as holy, when maybe in reality such descriptors are somewhat of a stretch.
>>1233753
Some google results are telling me that it's a constant demand that statements be backed up by evidence done in a polite manner, possibly as a means to derail an argument by wasting time.
Which kind of seems ridiculous.
Unless it is incredibly petty claiming that your opponent is constantly demanding that you back up your statements with evidence or sources as if it were some kind of insult seems like it defeats the point of even having a debate.
Unless it's, you know, the completely retarded 4chan variety of quoting a post and saying "proofs?", which having been mentioned is probably going to happen in an attempt to be "clever" and "humorous".
>>1233709
When they construct arguments that don't even have the decency to be wrong and could have been picked apart by someone with even beginner level knowledge of that field.
Or when it's 8 hours of youtube videos contained in a copypasta being used to prove a point.
But I hardly think those two really qualify as being part of a scholarly debate or a debate outside of facebook, internet forums and 4chan.
>>1233709
only if it's some dynamite roast that ties directly into the subject you are debating and is witty
if you destroy them and add "you stupid faggot" tier insult you just make yourself look moronic
>>1233841
>describing themselves as an empire, or as Roman, or perhaps as holy
>>1233709
When their position is founded in a worldview and background others do not share. As an incredibly valuable example, look at how modern feminism is structured on the belief that women are men owing to the fact that the creators of such ideologies are predominately jewish and/or bulldykes.
of course, as long as your argument beats theres.
I love beating my opponent in an argument and also insulting them
>>1233915
>Unless it's, you know, the completely retarded 4chan variety of quoting a post and saying "proofs?", which having been mentioned is probably going to happen in an attempt to be "clever" and "humorous".
It's more obvious when 4chan does it because 4chan doesn't bother to be polite or subtle or even construct sentences, but make no mistake, you can just as easily disrupt someone's argument when you add a little verbal dressing on the request so you don't sound like an autist pretending to be a vatnik.
>>1233775
>>1233728
The problem with most ad hominem attacks is it is a sign of weakness, and it shows that you're running out of compelling arguments.
But, if you can get the chance to get in their head without distracting from your own arguments, you might as well.
Also, if an opponent is arguing from a position of authority, there's no reason not to tear down his experience and integrity if it means his arguments become weaker. An appeal to authority is itself a fallacy.
when u wanna win
