Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Argumentation 4/2018

27-02-2018

Precedential Ad Hominem in Polemical Exchange: Examples from the Israeli Political Debate

Author: Eithan Orkibi

Published in: Argumentation | Issue 4/2018

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

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).

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
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.
 
2
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.
 
3
Major General and politician affiliated with the Israeli right.
 
4
For an overview and analysis of intellectual virtue in ad hominem, see Battaly (2010).
 
5
On bias ad hominem and dialogical attitude, see Macagno (2013).
 
Literature
go back to reference 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. 1999. The Argument Ad Hominem in an Interactional Perspective. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Argumentation, 14–18. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
go back to reference Amossy, Ruth. 2001. Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology. Poetics Today 22(1): 1–23.CrossRef Amossy, Ruth. 2001. Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology. Poetics Today 22(1): 1–23.CrossRef
go back to reference Amossy, Ruth. 2005. The Argumentative Dimension of Discourse. In Argumentation in Practice, ed. Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Amossy, Ruth. 2005. The Argumentative Dimension of Discourse. In Argumentation in Practice, ed. Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
go back to reference Amossy, Ruth. 2009. Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments. Informal Logic 29(3): 252–267.CrossRef Amossy, Ruth. 2009. Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments. Informal Logic 29(3): 252–267.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Battaly, Heather. 2010. Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology. Informal Logic 30(4): 361–390.CrossRef Battaly, Heather. 2010. Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology. Informal Logic 30(4): 361–390.CrossRef
go back to reference Brinton, Alan. 1985. A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 50–63.CrossRef Brinton, Alan. 1985. A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 50–63.CrossRef
go back to reference Brinton, Alan. 1986. Ethotic Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 3(3): 245–258. Brinton, Alan. 1986. Ethotic Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 3(3): 245–258.
go back to reference Budzynska, Katarzyna, and Maciej Witek. 2014. Non-inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation 28(3): 301–315.CrossRef Budzynska, Katarzyna, and Maciej Witek. 2014. Non-inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation 28(3): 301–315.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Govier, Trudy. 2010. A Practical Study of Argument, 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Govier, Trudy. 2010. A Practical Study of Argument, 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
go back to reference Hinman, Lawrence M. 1982. The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60(4): 338–345.CrossRef Hinman, Lawrence M. 1982. The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60(4): 338–345.CrossRef
go back to reference Leff, Michael. 2009. Perelman, ad Hominem Argument, and Rhetorical Ethos. Argumentation 23(3): 301–311.CrossRef Leff, Michael. 2009. Perelman, ad Hominem Argument, and Rhetorical Ethos. Argumentation 23(3): 301–311.CrossRef
go back to reference Macagno, Fabrizio. 2013. Strategies of Character Attack. Argumentation 27(4): 369–401.CrossRef Macagno, Fabrizio. 2013. Strategies of Character Attack. Argumentation 27(4): 369–401.CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Patrick, Brian Anse. 2006. Group Ethos and the Communication of Social Action. Small Group Research 37(5): 425–458.CrossRef Patrick, Brian Anse. 2006. Group Ethos and the Communication of Social Action. Small Group Research 37(5): 425–458.CrossRef
go back to reference Plantin, Christian. 2003. Des Polémistes aux Polémiqueurs. In La Parole Polémique, ed. Gilles Declercq, Michel Murat, and Jacqueline Dangel, 377–408. Paris: Champion. Plantin, Christian. 2003. Des Polémistes aux Polémiqueurs. In La Parole Polémique, ed. Gilles Declercq, Michel Murat, and Jacqueline Dangel, 377–408. Paris: Champion.
go back to reference Rohlinger, Deana A. 2002. Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics. Sociological Quarterly 43(4): 479–507.CrossRef Rohlinger, Deana A. 2002. Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics. Sociological Quarterly 43(4): 479–507.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Salmon, Wesley C. 1963. Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Salmon, Wesley C. 1963. Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
go back to reference Simons, Herbert W. 1982. Genres, Rules, and Collective Rhetorics: Applying the Requirements-Problems-Strategies Approach. Communication Quarterly 30(3): 181–188.CrossRef Simons, Herbert W. 1982. Genres, Rules, and Collective Rhetorics: Applying the Requirements-Problems-Strategies Approach. Communication Quarterly 30(3): 181–188.CrossRef
go back to reference van Emeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1987. fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.CrossRef van Emeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1987. fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.CrossRef
go back to reference van Emeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. Argumentation 6(2): 141–159.CrossRef van Emeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. Argumentation 6(2): 141–159.CrossRef
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Walton, D. 2013. Argument from Analogy in Legal Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21(3): 279–302.CrossRef Walton, D. 2013. Argument from Analogy in Legal Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21(3): 279–302.CrossRef
go back to reference Walton, D. 2005. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Walton, D. 2005. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Walton, D. 1998. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Walton, D. 1998. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
go back to reference Walton, D. 1989. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walton, D. 1989. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Wei, Yong-Kang. 2002. Corporate Image as Collective Ethos: A Poststructuralist Approach. Corporate Communication 7(4): 269–276.CrossRef Wei, Yong-Kang. 2002. Corporate Image as Collective Ethos: A Poststructuralist Approach. Corporate Communication 7(4): 269–276.CrossRef
go back to reference Avital, Gabi. 2006. Which of us is the Sane One? Maariv, July 20. Avital, Gabi. 2006. Which of us is the Sane One? Maariv, July 20.
go back to reference Dan, Uri. 2006. A Predetermined Outcome of War. Maariv, July 13. Dan, Uri. 2006. A Predetermined Outcome of War. Maariv, July 13.
go back to reference Eldad, Arieh. 2006. Blindness. Maariv—Shabbat Supplement, July 7, 2006, p. 12. Eldad, Arieh. 2006. Blindness. Maariv—Shabbat Supplement, July 7, 2006, p. 12.
go back to reference Eldad, Arieh. 2006. The Failure. Maariv—Shabbat Supplement, July 21. Eldad, Arieh. 2006. The Failure. Maariv—Shabbat Supplement, July 21.
go back to reference Goldstein, Dov. 2006. Sorry for not Winning. Maariv, August 20. Goldstein, Dov. 2006. Sorry for not Winning. Maariv, August 20.
go back to reference Haetzni, Elyakim. 2006. You Promised a Dove and Got a Katyusha. Yedioth Aharonot, August 7. Haetzni, Elyakim. 2006. You Promised a Dove and Got a Katyusha. Yedioth Aharonot, August 7.
go back to reference Haetzni, Nadav. 2006. The New Jewish Invention. Maariv—The Sabbath Supplement, July 28. Haetzni, Nadav. 2006. The New Jewish Invention. MaarivThe Sabbath Supplement, July 28.
go back to reference Harel, Israel. 2006. Back to Reality. Haaretz, 13 July. Harel, Israel. 2006. Back to Reality. Haaretz, 13 July.
go back to reference Orbach, Uri. 2006a. Leftist Wisdom. Yedioth Ahronoth—The Sabbath Supplement, July 7, 2006. Orbach, Uri. 2006a. Leftist Wisdom. Yedioth AhronothThe Sabbath Supplement, July 7, 2006.
go back to reference Orbach, Uri. 2006b. Ready, Steady, Fire. Yedioth Ahronoth, July 21, 2006. Orbach, Uri. 2006b. Ready, Steady, Fire. Yedioth Ahronoth, July 21, 2006.
go back to reference Porat, Uri. Where have We Gone Wrong? Yedioth Ahronoth, August 14, 2006. Porat, Uri. Where have We Gone Wrong? Yedioth Ahronoth, August 14, 2006.
go back to reference Segal, Erel. 2006. It’s Very Clear. Maariv—Weekend, August 4. Segal, Erel. 2006. It’s Very Clear. MaarivWeekend, August 4.
go back to reference Shragai, Nadav. 2006a. The Open Wound of Gush Katif. Haaretz, August 2. Shragai, Nadav. 2006a. The Open Wound of Gush Katif. Haaretz, August 2.
go back to reference Shragai, Nadav. 2006b. We have Earned it Fair and Square. Haaretz, July 16. Shragai, Nadav. 2006b. We have Earned it Fair and Square. Haaretz, July 16.
Metadata
Title
Precedential Ad Hominem in Polemical Exchange: Examples from the Israeli Political Debate
Author
Eithan Orkibi
Publication date
27-02-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Argumentation / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9453-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Argumentation 4/2018 Go to the issue