User:HighInBC/Discrediting your opponent

A notion commonly seen in Wikipedia and elsewhere is that you can defeat the arguments of another person by discrediting that person via accusations, true or false. This is not an original idea, and is indeed as old as the hills. One of its older names is argumentum ad hominem. It is used in either bad faith or ignorance by people when arguing with others who are inexperienced with debate or logical fallacies and seek to take advantage of this.

The idea that an argument can be defeated by discrediting the person making the argument assumes that a given argument can be valid if one person uses it yet invalid if another person uses it. This is a form of sophistry because the person making the accusations knows that they are at best peripheral to the argument at hand. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this ruse and feel the need to defend themselves against the accuser. This deflects their attention from the substantive issues, and may add credibility to the attacks.

Responding to this tactic

 * Avoid personal attacks

To engage in personal attacks against a person using this deceptive tactic is tantamount to adopting the tactic yourself. Do not resort to comments like "liar" or "you are no better, you did this and that as well". While it may be appropriate to warn people about a person's behavior it is important to describe the behavior not the person. Even mild comments like "He is not a very pleasant person" will make you appear to be engaging in the very same tactics. When this happens it ceases to be one editor attacking another, and becomes two editors squabbling. The likelihood of the speedy resolution drops.


 * Stick to the subject and do not be swayed into debating the accusations instead of the subject at hand
 * Document such actions for later if needed