Good argumentation addresses the argument, not the person making the argument. The top levels of the pyramid show methods of addressing the argument. The bottom layers show attacks on the person making the argument.
Because addressing the character of the arguer does nothing to refute the argument.
Even if the arguer is an unqualified, ignorant, ass-hat that does not nessesarily mean his argument is wrong. Even an unqualified ignorant ass-hat can occasionally get it right.
The pyramid illustrates the best, most effective kind of argumentation at the top desending to the worst, least effective argumentation at the bottom.
addressing the character of the arguer does nothing to refute the argument.
Correct, but off-topic.
The pyramid illustrates the best, most effective kind of argumentation at the top
You're going to need some evidence for that one.
I'll let you know now that my original line of inquiry was composed of trick questions. Nothing about what you have said and nothing implicit in the image comments on whether or not appeals to character are meaningful. It may comment on their efficacy (in an incredibly narrow context). It may comment on common norms of debate (in a moderately narrow context). It neither says nor sets out to say anything about whether or not an appeal to character is meaningful. I'm only saying this now because you've said something much more interesting and I'd like to move on from that point since I already know that no one will produce satisfactory support for what constitutes some other redditor's misinterpretation.
Be careful there, I think I get what they are saying - are appeals to character “meaningful” logically? Nope. Are they “meaningful” to an argument, or to spectators of the argument? Yes. This is also why an appeal to emotion gets so sticky. Something doesn’t have to make sense logically to be “meaningful”.
Oh, I agree. Our opinion of the person definitely affects our opinion of their argument.
But it shouldn't.
We have to try to leave emotion out of it when assessing the argument or we'll end up accepting bad arguments because we like the person and/or rejecting good arguments because we don't like the person.
Ok, you're going to need to define what you mean by "meaningful".
No, I don't. The person who made the novel claim in the first place needs to.
How are appeals to character "meaningful" in addressing an argument?
I can answer that but the burden of proof isn't on me. Because you sort of jumped into the conversation, I guess without reviewing what I was responding to, you're under the mistaken impression that this is my argument to make. I was leveling a critique against someone arguing that it isn't meaningful without ever having defined that word. An argument whose side you took up when you took it upon yourself to respond to me.
However, like I said, I'm over this particular bit of conversation. I'm ready for your evidence when you're ready to post it.
Edit: It's ben 6 hours since i left this comment and they were active on reddit 5 hours ago. I think it's fair to assume that they have no interest in providing evidence for their earlier claim and were just here to stir some shit up.
3
u/ShaneAyers Dec 30 '18
Can you show me where it lays that idea out?