In a recent exchange of opinion on another blog I was accused of building a Straw Man, but I stuck one up my opponent by proving that he had used arguments Ad Hominem. Touche!
(This proves that both me and my opponent are very clever chaps and that we both understand the classical laws of logic - see!)
Regardless of the merits of what He said or what I said or what He said I said which I didn't say and vice verca, are these classical rules of engagement important in the modern political arena?
If a fallacy of argument helps you to get one over on your political opponent and helps to kick him square in the goolies - what's wrong with using it?
And isn't appealing to the rules itself a fallacy of argument? - In being a diversion from the issue in question to an issue of the rules of engagement!
Do other bloggers, writers of letters to the editor or commentators on politics in general really rate these rules?
Should they be obeyed?
Or should they be abused, with a passion, in order to advance the cause?
(NB This post is not an admission that I have used fallacies of argument against anybody! As if I would! It is just a general question!)