Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're right. I extrapolated to where I sense the Heritage Foundation was hinting at. Word for word, if it came from an apolitical source, there would be nothing to argue against.


Then don't argue against it. Say, "This article is true in and of itself, but I think the heritage foundation is presenting it in order to..."


The merit of an argument is independent of its source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


Maybe if you're a computer or participating in high school debate. The source matters a lot, because it indicates intent.


Ok, I committed another fallacy in the first sentence. Ignore that and just read the second.


No, the second sentence is wrong too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: