Quote invisigal4evah: Definition of a Debate:
Poster 1: Bwooke is a ho! Skanky! Ho! Disease! Crust!
Poster 2: I do not agree.
Poster 1: Are you baiting me??????????????
Poster 3: You are beautiful beyond words, poster 1!
Poster 2: I wasn't baiting you!
Poster 1: Yes you were! Ho! Ho! Screw on the wall! Ho!
Poster 3: Spot on, you genius! And you're beautiful!
Poster 4: Yes! Beautiful and articulately fabulously fabulous! Smart and fab!
Poster 1: Thanks for having my back against this wicked baiter. We are the best EVER! HO HO HO!!! CRUST!!
Hmmm, well, if this is not a prime example of a fanbase group bash and flame post, I do not know what is!!
In essence the counter argument used here (And I used the term counter argument loosely
, lololll) is a fan group "ad hominem" attack and a fan red herring combo. In effect, rather than attack the argument the strategy used is to attempt to ridicule the posters with "loose" sarcasm.....HAHAHAHA, lololllll, yes, well done on a trifecta factor (Bait/Bash/Enflame achieved), lololllll!!
Too bad we did not think to use this fanbase bash approach in the pro Bwooke threads?
Oh, yes, we did. We just restrain ourselves because we prefer to debate the points of fictional characters rather than bash REAL people to defend FAKE characters!
Talk about OVER-KILL! lololllll
PS I am just telling the truth in my post, Bella is the sweetest poster ever along with being extremely smart (IMO) as are Logan, cat, TIMTAM, B&B, Steffy, Kat, Vixie, BT and all our ANTI-HOS too. I love our girls because most of us tend to argue the points made NOT argue against the posters or posts themselves. I firmly believe by our actions that we consist of a group of extremely self-disciplined, civilized, non bashing but intelligent and truly beautiful posters (If I do say so myself, lololll)....I admit, I could be slightly biased but I do believe the actions exhibited on the forum do support my claim!!
The link below is from UNC and speaks of the ad hominem fallacious type of argument....I am honestly just trying to help.
Ad hominem and tu quoque Definitions:
Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.
Examples: "Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to her." Dworkin's appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.
This goes towards the ad hominem attack used in the post I am quoting!
I appreciate your post, but in order to have a counter argument, there must be two opposing views, am I correct?
Ordinarily, the basis for said argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences. This criteria has not been met.
The quoted post is humorous sarcasm, and is directed toward no person in particular, so the "baiting and flaming" accusations are also nullified.
It's been awhile, but correct me if I'm wrong here. An ad hominem argument consists of the following components:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
No claim was made, so no attack could take place.
Hope this helps!
I have to hop in here give my two cents worth as I just found this thread and I have studied valid and false arguments in philosophy and am intrigued by this conversation.
"Person A" is DR claiming that it was not mistaken identity.
"Person B" is Invisigal not talking about the claim just made but attacking the debating style of Anti-Hos instead which in effect is attacking DR.
Thereby trying to falsify Person A's claim.
Sounds very much like an ad hominem argument to me, JMO!
Please correct me if you see fit coz I may have a different Person A in mind to what you have.
I'd be glad to clarify!
In this example, person A said "Brooke is in denial
that she knew it was Oliver (sic)"
person B , in counterpoint, posted the definition of the word "denial".
person A replied "Is that a bash?"
Person A is stating an opinion, and person B stated a valid argument concerning the definition of the word used to make A's point.
Person A used the ad hominem style or argument, or deflection, to bolster his or her case.
Now, in the case of my post, it's simply a humorous way to point out how touchy we've all become on this silly subject.
To the point of the actual title of this post, I, too disagree with the author. I don't think Brooke knew it was Oliver at the time. I think she actually thought she was having a quickie with her husband, which isn't a whole lot better if you ask me. If you can't leave your britches on until you get home you'd better see a doctor.
I also think it was one of the dumbest story lines in the history of soapland, but I'm not a writer.
This issue is so off-topic and I apologise to all reading however I must reply, it is so interesting for me.
Invisigal, by your own explanation above, wouldn't Person A be 11Aces and Person B be Dawns Rainbow, thereby creating the false argument. JMO! Please don't be angry, I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ and start an argument esp not an ad hominem argument, LOL! You've obviously studied philosophy so it is normal to debate an argument's validity in philosophy classes and it's been a while for me too. LOL!
My ad hominem argument above works perfectly IMHO and I think that's what Dawn was pointing out. This means that my Person B avoided the topic altogether (i.e. the claim) and posted something against the poster itself.
Person B has to make the attack on Person A, not Person A making an attack on Person B.
You know, I reread and realized that! You're absolutely right! In my example, I was wrong.
Very subtle, but correct in theory. 11's post was an attempt to discredit DR's assertion that the "act" was not a mistake, rather that it was intentional. 11's posting of the definition of "denial" is proof.
However, I still wish DR would have debated that point instead of taking it as an attack.
You're right about something else, too. I did study philosophy, psychology, boys, boys, boys and booze. It's been many moons, but I can pull some of it out of moth balls occasionally! Thanks for the intelligent discussion!
Kudos to all those in this debate who made it intelligent and worth reading without any vulgarity involved. I tend to agree with the fact that so long as there are no personal attacks, which it wasn't in this case, although some may think there was, it's simply entertaining. Good job to 11aces, who had so much logic put into this and DawnRainbow for her rebuttals. Invisigal, wow! You have great diction. I presume it comes from an academic background. Great job everyone!