A number of well-respected members have contacted the staff expressing frustration at the recent increase in ad hominem attacks here on the forums. Indeed, the staff has noticed too. Ad hominem attacks do not add any substance to our debates. Moreover, such comments are not constructive and therefore, against the Rules.

Perhaps some of you don't even realize you're doing it. Here are a few sites that explain what an ad hominem logic fallacy is:
Wikipedia
SJSU
Drury University.

It is a very unfair debate tactic to make preposterous allegations about your opposition's political party and then expect members of that party to defend those allegations (as if they even believe the preposterous ideas you allege). So for example - don't make conservative members defend the President, Fox News, etc. They can only speak for themselves. Don't make liberal members defend any Clinton, the 'mainstream' media, etc. They also can only speak for themselves.

This poor method of debate can often be avoided by simply debating in a constructive fashion. Refresh yourself on constructive debate by reading the Survival Guide. Some of us also need to check our egos at the login screen. These debates aren't contests. No one ever wins.

Along these same lines, there is a small handful of members who can't seem to lay off of each other. Of the reports and complaints we've received in the last week or so, nearly 90% of them are regarding the same small group of members. The constant one-upmanship peppered with snide commentary gets old and no one but those involved in it find it interesting or even worthy of a read. I hope you folks who get involved in these petty spats know who you are and work to cull your own actions. Failure to do so will result in strikes and suspensions. Either way, this low brow debating is going to stop.

Thanks to everyone who has written me and the other staff members recently to express your concerns. Thank you also for all the vigilant reports. is great because of members like you.

Feel free to share your thoughts on this matter.

Just a word to say thanks for dealing with this unpleasant issue. Keep up the good work!

It might be a good idea to remember that we are all guests here, and we should respect the wishes of our kind hosts.

Just want to thank the admin for doing a good job and stepping in when it's needed.

(and I wanted to bump this back up to the top so more people will read it.)

Here are my thoughts on the matter.....

The majority of posters in this forum are left leaning. They don't like their sacred cows being (al) Gored.

When one posts in A-D opinions that believers in the religion of liberalism find as "heresy" one usually gets a harsh reaction. My recent posts are no exception.

It's no different than the reaction one might expect if one joined a forum run by fundamentalist christians and started a thread called "There is no God".

I've attacked a number of people in my recent posts.... but NONE of them are members of A-D... unless Albert Gore, William Jefferson Clinton, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and Noam Chomsky have recently joined A-D.

Implying that Albert Gore Jr. is as loonie as a cage full of meth snorting ferrets is NOT an ad hominem attack... unless similar attacks on the intelligence, morality, and integrity of President Bush are. Are they?

Public figures are fair game. So are public political parties in my view per the RULES. The left leaning majority in this forum rail against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Republicans et all ENDLESSLY and I'm sure they consider that to be "civil debate". After all.... in their mind they are CORRECT. To the left, they're just pointing out "facts", not attacking someone personally. We see this slant in dozens upon dozens of posts.

Yet, responses to my provocative posts almost ALWAYS contain personal attacks against me. I'm either crazy, naive, uneducated, or "know everything". There is no end to snide comments, put-downs, and personal attacks against "LH" in these posts. There are three posters in particular who apparently believe it's their sacred duty to bash me into oblivion or chase me from this forum. Frankly, my skin is more than thick enough to take it and the fact that they routinely attack me just points out the weakness in their arguments.

America has a strong tradition of "Free Speech". In contrast to what the left typically mean by this (dissenting and left wing views are allowed only), I believe this works both ways.

One cannot have "debate" if one does not have strong disagreement. And my suggestion is to look at "who" is making the complaints "recently" and "what" they are complaining about. Is Americas Debate about "debate" or is it to be a comfortable place for people to congregate, dominated by the same left leaning majority of "usual suspects" with a few token dissenting conservatives thrown in to give the illusion of "balance"?

Those are my thoughts per your request.

I think part of the problem is in the way several threads have been initiated of late.

When someone stars a starts of with what sport announcers call "color commentary" people are put on the defensive and go on offense immediately.

As has been pointed out before, it might be better to start a thread objectively and then add one's personal opinions later.

Actually- I think that entire post is pretty much an example of an oblique ad-hominem attack, don't ya think? "left leaning AD" would pretty much make it appear that this board is run by "left leaning folks"- something I am pretty sure Mike and Jaime would deny?
It is quite a supposition to say about this forum that "The majority of posters in this forum are left leaning" -

So, what evidence of the majority of posters are there for being left leaning? That, in itself, is both a generalization, and an attack, since that APPEARS to be a negative thing to you, correct?




That, I think, would be very near the definition that Jaime provided?

Another way to deal with this is to not participate at all. In fact, I've made this my midyear resolution and hope to see the strategy done on the Colbert show:

So, who hates America more, you or Michael Moore?

>>silence<<

Well?

>>blank stare<<

Cat got your tongue?

>>creekit creekit<<

I'll just put you down for hating America more.

>>stretch, yawn<<

Next question: George Bush, great American president or the greatest?

>>put head on hands, snore<<

Greatest it is.

When a change-up is tossed down the center of the plate and the wind is blowing strongly out to left field......

"Michael Moore."

Clearly.

Personally, I think ad hominem attacks are intellectual laziness. If you can't make a good argument, throw a bucket of crap against the wall and deal with whatever sticks.

Much like the "left leaning" accusation. This cracks me up. I'm a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, fiscal conservative, strong foreign policy, small government conservative, but I have very, very little in common with the so-called conservatives on here. And when I defend my position, I'm a liberal. Hence, we get "left-leaning" accusations as a self fulfilling prophecy.

I don't get bothered with those attacks because if you have to use them against me in a debate, that just means I'm smarter than you....

Who are the so-called conservatives in here and how many of them would you say are active members?

2? 3?

And how many of the regular posters are self defined liberals or demonstrate left of center attitudes and world-view?

A lot more. Way more.

I stand by my characterization that A-D is left of center. It's the nature of the beast. This is true in ALL forums that I've ever seen by the way. It's even true when it comes to things like "bumper stickers". It's rare to see a car plastered with them if the views are "conservative" or "right" of center. Yet, when you see a car covered with stick on slogans, it's almost ALWAYS left wing.

It's the same in here. Conservatives are not usually in a forum like this posting. They are out there making money, starting and running companies, fighting fires, arresting criminals, or pursuing the war on terror. I am the exception, not the norm with respect to my world-view.

That would be a supposition that YOU don't like the definition of conservative that conservitives on this site claim to be?

so, for all the conservative posters- you don't believe them to be conservative unless they meet YOUR definition?

I don't believe to be left of center per se, though I might believe that there are more active liberal posters, at least right now and recently.

I also think that both sides use the ad hominem attack with equal fervor. I'm guilty of using the term 'left leaning', or lumped liberals together for purposes of debate, but I also sit by and read the various 'right wing' generalizations, and the suppositions by certain posters that 'we all know the truth, some of us are just blinded to the party line'.

I think unfortunately that ad hominem attacks are part of the nature of the beast with debating. We all just need to try and refrain from posting when our dander is up.
I also think that part of the problem is that labels just don't fit, no matter how hard we all try and make them. These days we really can't shoehorn people into the molds that we make for them. Which is especially ironic since we really don't know each other, save for a few hundred written posts or so.

I consider myself a conservative, although a small (l) libertarian. I waffle on abortion, fairly liberal on social issues, and a fiscal conservative. I don't know, nor do I really care if somebody doesn't view me as a 'real' conservative. It doesn't really matter in the real world.

Just for the record, stats don't back up the assertions that the site is heavily left leaning.

stats

We used to have a stat tracker that tried to gauge the slant on a more recent basis but it is off line or beyond my ability to find it.

The top ten posters on the sight and the top fifty don't reflect a dominant presence of the left either. Now, of course, it always does depend on where you decide left begins, but I think it is fair to say that right is people who identify themselves as conservative or republican.

top posters

And breaking the rules of the cite is not okay because other people do it to. It is either something done or it is not. And justifying or promoting breaking the rules of the site is kind of like asking to lose the privilege of posting here.

Thanks to everyone who has chimed in so far.

When Mike and I started one of our biggest concerns was civility (Our History). After 9/11 we were disgusted by the way people treated each other on some of the internet's most popular political websites. We set out to ensure that was going to be a place that did not allow the pundit talkover fests, the name calling, or the unfounded inflammatory statements. That is still our goal today.

Now certainly loud pundit type shows are popular and therefore, it's obvious that is what some people want. But we don't want that here at . If you can't drop that kind of attitude then is not the place for you. If you feel compelled to make broad brushed assertions about your political opposites, you like to make up names for politicos you don't like to inflame others, or if you can't refrain from commenting on someone else's intelligence, then please find the proper forum to debate. is not that place.

Again, thanks to everyone who has expressed themselves here. I think we're learning a lot.

Hmmm. If I didn't know better I'd think lord was just baiting people to respond. Do only lefties NOT want to earn money or fight terror?

I personally dislike this "us vs. them" stuff. Instead of just talking about issues we end up talking about "our party" or "us". Then we pigeon-hole people whether they're in our camp or not.

I'd rather talk about the issues than name calling and trying to determine who you're with or against.

People aren't brands. People have diverse opinions and thoughts, it's not like I'm a Ford and you're a Microsoft and everything I believe in can be found in a corporate statement.

You're a conservative, no I'm not! You're a lefty and so is all the media!! It sounds a little paranoid to me and very SIMPLISTIC.

Stick to the issues and debating them. It'll reduce the ad hominems and name calling.

Perhaps it is time for a little humor. There’s an old saying that sugar coating “makes the pill easier to swallow” or as the line from Mary Poppins goes, “a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.”

I found this in this morning’s paper and thought it fit. Get Fuzzy for 6-3-06 finds Bucky Katt using state of the art ad hominems:

“Philistines! Liberals! Monkey Huggers!”

http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/
This link will change tomorrow.

AMERICA'S DEBATE--THE EARLIER YEARS


Once Virginia's John Sharp Williams, very deaf, got into a heated debate with Illinois Senator Lawrence V. Sherman, who was also hard of hearing, and they flung angry words at each other for several minutes. Finally Indiana's James E. Watson went over to the side of Sherman on which his good ear was located and said: "Lawrence, you seem to be having a pretty hot time here." "Yes," said Sherman, turning to Watson, "Williams and I are having a hell of a debate. Neither of us hears a word the other fellow says, and neither of us gives a damn!"


Source: Congressional Anecdotes, Paul F. Boller, Jr., Oxford University Press, 1991, pages 208-209.


The thought of two old, stubborn, hard of hearing senators yelling at each other--but not hearing a thing--may be pretty funny.

But, is this really how we want to debate here?

The ad hominem attack that really gets me (and ill freely admit that i have probably been guilty of it once or twice) is when one poster asks the other is they have a grasp on the English language. "You can't comprehend my argument even though it is so perfectly laid out for you and logically sound that the only explanation to your ignorance must be that you don't understand English." I think out of all the attacks one can make that this is perhaps the worst. Just because there is a disagreement with your side or a misinterpretation of your point should have nothing to do with one's comprehension of the language.

Debating isn't about winners and losers. That's sports. Debating is about having a point of view and the ability to defend it. If you want to score points, be popular and "win" you're playing the wrong game.

As a member of for a couple of years now I find I have to raise my game when I'm dealing with many of the posters here because they are well-read, articulate, informed and passionate. What I think is unfortunate is when people confuse the Chris Matthews/Bill O' Reilly style of "discussion" with the real thing. Being opinionated is one thing. Trying to pound others into submission by being the loudest and most obnoxious is something else.

If we're playing the label game, I'll freely admit to falling on the side of the Left side of the aisle. But despite what a few conservatives might believe, I'm not a Yellow Dog Democrat where everything Democratic/Left is good and everything Republican/Conservative is bad. That's both overly simplistic and totally wrong. There are good conservatives and bad liberals and I think I'm smart enough to tell them apart.

I don't know if there are more liberals than conservatives on the board, but what I do know is that people post when they FEEL like they have something to say. Look back in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential Elections. There were those on one side of the political equation that could hardly contain their chortling pleasure over George Bush's reelection, while those who backed John Kerry were in a deep funk that left them barely able to function after such a disappointing defeat.

Most people post when they are angry, upset, mad or concerned about something. The Republicans have found it's a lot easier to be an opposition party than a governing party. The same thing has trickled down to the board. If a lot of the more conservative posters aren't posting, perhaps it reflects their own unhappiness with President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. On the other hand, Democrats and liberals are feeling a bit more optimistic about their chances in November and that sense of renewal plays out on this board as well.



I don't know if I'm one of those "three posters in particular" but I find the notion rather quaint that there are those whom lie in wait in hope that a given individual wlll say something---ANYTHING--that will tick them off. Please. As I have said before, some of us take ourselves way too seriously. There's a certain amount of your own personality that comes through in a post and some folks here I would probably dislike as much in person as I do from their posts. However, I don't go out of my way to hunt down anyone's posts looking to start a flame war. That just seems like a serious case of "need to get a life."

If you don't believe it, when you're on your lunch hour at work, just TRY and start a conversation when your buddy about how you pounded the crap out of someone in a thread on America's Debate. Don't be surprised though if they look at you like you've just fallen out of a tree. Either that or their eyes might glaze over in sheer boredom and they start snoring.

What we do here just isn't that important to anyone not here.

There are posters whom I find their contributions to be boring, poorly written, badly thought out and just plain dull. I treat their posts the same way I do Adam Sandler movies and Kenny G smooth jazz: I avoid them and find life is much richer for doing so. On the flip side, other members have a habit of delivering the goods with posts that are smart and well-written and as a fan of the written word I'm a big fan of people who have their stuff together like that.

The ONLY people whom I find their posters to be utterly worthless are overt racists and bigots, spammers and "hit and run" single-issue types who breeze through, knock over the furniture, raise blood pressure and take off as soon as they are exposed as the shallow idiots they are.

When you post on America's Debate and you don't have your facts straight you can expect someone to correct you and not always in a way that doesn't crush your ego. There are a lot of ways to totally demolish someone's argument and call them a babbling fool without ever using the words. I'm sorry that some people consider themselves personally attacked when all I'm doing is pointing out the structural flaws in their rhetorical house of cards.

Is there a certain perverse pleasure in intellectually stripping someone naked? Sure. It's fun too. But there's nothing stylish about CALLING someone a jerk. It's infinitely more satisfying when you do it with a little flair, panache and style.

But most of all, if you lighten up and don't tighten up, the ride's a lot less bumpy and a lot more fun. Sometimes you serve and sometimes you get served, but that's just the way of the world and America's Debate. What Mike and Jaime did here was create not a tea party, but a debating class and in debating classes there are rules. The fact that I haven't been run off the board (yet) is at times a source of wonder to me----and a perplexing irritant to others.

Personally, I think I'm less strident, less of an absolutist, less of a knee-jerk liberal and more accommodating, open-minded and respectful of opinions and viewpoints that run counter to my own. However, with that increased tolerance has also come a greater confidence in my own views and beliefs as well. They've been battle-tested on this board and if you're shaky on your core beliefs you find there are posters here who can completely pick them apart before your eyes.

If you don't want to get splashed by the big kids, better stay in the shallow end of the pool. There are plenty of other boards out there that will welcome you. Me? I like the fact that there are people here who will agree with me on one day and point out when I'm totally full of it the next. It's like that bar on Cheers where everybody not only knows your name, they know your game and you had better bring your "A" game or you're going to get your feelings hurt and your ego bruised.

From some of what I've seen around here lately, it's about time for a bump of this thread.

The election season is heating up. The less experienced and lazier debaters are going to resort to ad hominems and sloganeering. Let's all work together to help those folks join us in constructive, civil debate. Support your sources and avoid soundbites and general party attacks. And of course, a reread of the Rules and Survival Guide couldn't hurt either.

Among the types of "ad hominem" that are listed on those sites is the attack on inconsistency: "You say A now, but yesterday you were saying B which is inconsistent with A." I don't think I agree that that really is part of the definition of ad hominem, provided that there truly is an inconsistency being pointed out. Unfortunately, however, there have been a number of instances where posters have made claims of inconsistent arguments that, upon just a small bit of inspection, are not inconsistent in the slightest. And they deliberately do it in a way that implies a disreputable motive on the part of the other poster (or posters, since the pratcitioners of this tactic are usually deft enough to avoid saying it to anyone in particular). This is one of the most insidious and poisonous forms of ad hominem, and I see it cropping up just a little too often on .

This is the sort of exchange I find hypocritical. One member tears down the intelligence of another under the guise of intelligent debate. Furthermore, they many times tell the other person that they should stop the personal attacks. I see many asking for sources, as though that will add credibility that the poster doesn't have. Posting sources is fine, but is overrated since technically it only proves that you believe what you read. Even the best institutions have had flawed studies. Just because Doctor So and so or UCLA says something doesn't always make it so. Asking for sources is also a great debate ploy to substitute for a real response. We've all asked for them, but I think we should try to keep a perspective.

Thank you for your comments. However, I think you will find the story is quite a bit different if you examine the history of the entire thread. I recommend perusing it, starting with post 240 or so.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...3162&st=240

I quite happily stand by my words, including my comments you cited above. I believe an honest examination of the entire exchange tells a very interesting story on the methodology and motives of both participants.



That's fair enough, though obviously there are sources, and there are sources. I trust the department of Labour, or Statistics Canada, or the Department of justice sources over obviosuly biased ones, or over no sources at all, just opinions presented as if they were facts.

However, none of that is at isue here, or relevant to the post you quoted. Asking people to explain assertions is certainly acceptable, and very reasonable, in fact it is to be expected if you make a counter-factual assertion, then provide not only no sources, but no explanation whatsoever to back it up.

Thanks for the exmples TFI.

Here's one from someone we'll call member 3.

These last comments to this thread are quite upsetting. Instead of making a critical examination of yourself and your own posting style this topic is now turning to snide digs and comments on each other. STOP IT ALREADY. This is embarrassing for you.

Before you post again read the Rules. Read the Survival Guide.

Be civil or leave. is a civil place to share ideas.

If you're going to be a jerk there are plenty of other forums out there for you, but will not tolerate this petty, pathetic bickering that a small handful of you have recently decided to participate in. It gets really old for the rest of us.

I named no names, and made no attempt to identify certain individuals. I wanted to point out what I see as underlying tones. Your facts can be perfectly correct, but if you denigrate someone else's intelligence in the process, how does that make you more correct. That's just meanspiritedness and arrogance. I don't see anyone putting much in their profiles, so we don't know their background. You don't know how many degrees I have, who I work for or my experience; and I don't know yours. And people assume too much about their "facts" and their "sources". Dan Rather did that to his own destruction. I think it's also important to ask yourself why you're here; is it purely for entertainment or are you passionate about the issues you get involved in. I've been on many forums on the Web where people have confessed that they just like the sport of debating and spinning up the rhetoric, and that's their only motive for being around. I'm not saying I'm innocent either, so don't there.

Let's see, okay, don't name names and watch the underlying tone that someone might subjectively discern. Check.

Don't denigrate someone's intelligence (except public political figures, that's fair game). Check.

No meanspirited arrogance. Check.

I'll take a swag on the degree thing: too many. Close?

Watch out for "facts" and "sources," and I might add, the overuse of "whatevers."

One "source" re: "whatever" overuse

What's Dan Rather got to do with it? Is he on this board? Can I get an autograph?

Why am I here, let me count the ways:

1. Outlet for smart alecky ways not outgrown from high school and actually rather entertaining

2. Keeping the debate chops sharp just because

3. Reading some brilliant prose, and some not so shiny

4. Composing thoughts on subjects

5. Trying to figure out what the heck's going on in this world

6. Unabashedly looking for story ideas/character profiles/plots/conflicts, but mostly to avoid real work with the excuse that I'm doing important research for the next book.

So the answer is yes, I am here.

No there's. Check.

Just for the record, I've participated on Internet boards since 1988. If you really want a serious challenge, check this blog out:

She Has Flaming Hair, submit, I dare yah