Comment by sublinear
1 hour ago
I dunno. The truth is usually extremely straightforward to understand if you're willing to approach it without preconditions or any other wishful thinking. It's when people refuse to let all that go that they begin to argue at all.
Debate is usually not about finding the truth, but to enlighten someone on how their beliefs hid the truth from them.
I can very confidently say "you know what fuck you may you rot in hell for all eternity" mid-argument to a televangelist or some quack claiming to cure cancer with snake oil. Very few would disagree with me on here, but if I was at one of their gatherings I'd probably get beaten down. Some people are just easier to attack that way because the insult isn't far from the truth.
If you play the messenger deductively, then its invalid. So much for formal logic. Most arguments in practice are defeasible, and the ad hominem, for better or worse, often plays a significant and essential part in their resolution (addressing reputations, biases, agendas, interest conflicts, and so on). Virtually all interactions between people, even formal ones (e. g. in courts), are not some school exercise in formal logic.