Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/5/10 07:41 PM, Musician wrote: 2. CO2 makes up around 5% of Greenhouse Gasses. It is no where near as significant a factor as say wator vapor, which makes up the bulk of GHG in the atmosphere.

*7

6. Humans only contribute 3% of the earth's CO2 emissions, therefore our carbon emissions are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Yes it is true that human carbon emissions only account for 3%. So if we look at the larger picture human contributions must be insignificant right? Wrong. This argument spawns from a fundamental misunderstanding of the process known as the carbon cycle. Nature does add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but it also removes it from the atmosphere at an almost equal rate. Humans on the other hand, contribute large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere, and do nothing to remove them. Thus the bulk of excess carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere is coming from man made sources.

Still confused? Allow me to make an analogy. 2 men go to the same bank. One man deposits 1 million dollars to his account each year, but also withdraws around 990,000 dollars from his account each year. A second man deposits 50 thousand dollars a year, but does not withdraw any of it during the course of the year. In the end, who is contributing more money to the bank? A disingenuous person interested in distorting the facts, may point out that man #1 deposits $1,000,000 a year while man #2 only deposits $50,000. However, this ignores man #1's withdrawals. If looked at in context man #1 only contributes $10,000 a year to the bank, while man #2 contributes $50,000 a year. The same is true with carbon emissions. When looked at in context, it's clear that man is contributing the bulk of excess carbon being added to the atmosphere.

2. CO2 makes up around 5% of Greenhouse Gasses. It is no where near as significant a factor as say wator vapor, which makes up the bulk of GHG in the atmosphere.

This argument ignores the fact that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly related to the global temperature. What does this mean? At a certain temperature, the atmosphere can only hold so much water. This means that water vapor cannot cause global warming, since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere cannot increase until the temperature increases.

Not only is CO2 capable of staying in the atmosphere without an initial increase in temperature, it is also a much more powerful when it comes to capturing solar radiation. In fact, contemporary studies suggest that CO2 is more or less responsible for about 25% of the green house effect, despite making up a very small piece of the atmosphere. [1]

At 2/5/10 03:53 PM, poxpower wrote: In case you weren't aware, the "global cooling" thing is bullshit, there weren't any papers published predicting some imminent horrible ice age, it's all spin that came from a non-scientific article.

It's not complete bullshit, like I said there was a belief in the 1970's that the world may be cooling due to pollution in the atmosphere, but it wasn't as widespread as the belief that the world may start warming in the future due to GHG emmissions. There weren't many (or possibly any) papers predicting an ice age as Penn and Teller were suggesting, but there definitely was a scientific theory associated with world wide global cooling.

Being a man of science and logic myself I find it very hard to swallow some of the sheer bullshit being lobbed in the climate change debate. The purpose of this topic is for me debunk many of the uneducated claims that have been used to smear the name of perfectly legitimate scientific research.

First of all, I understand that there's already a thread on climate change on the front page. That topic is on the outcome of climate change should it be occuring (it is). This thread is designed to be a more general discussion of climate change.

So with out further ado, the "arguments" against climate change:

1. There is no scientific consensus on climate change

This is one is easily disproved. In December of 2004, Naomi Oreskes published a report in the scientific journal "Science" which examined 928 different published papers in scientific journals looking for tell tale signs of agreement or disagreement with the belief that the earth was warming and that green house emissions were most likely causing it. Oreskes found that close to 75% of the papers "either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view". The other 25% did not hold a position one way or the other. 0% of the papers disagreed with the consensus view. [1]

Now some have criticized Oreskes and not without good reason. It's very hard to determine support by reading unbiased scientific papers, and her report did not cover the full range of varying beliefs throughout the scientific community. However, nobody disagrees that Oreskes paper is an at least somewhat valid assessment of the the consensus within the scientific community.

But, in 2009 Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmer, wanting to tie the final knot in the debate on a consensus, performed a polling of over 3 thousand earth scientists to hear their opinion on the climate change debate. Out of 3146 participants, 82% agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures", and that percentage rises further when we look at climatologists [2]. At this point, any claims that the scientific community has not come to a consensus, are at best unfounded, and at worst deliberant ignorance of the matter.

2. In the 1970's scientists were certain that the world was cooling and that we were headed towards another ice age

And? There were also scientists who were proponents of global warming at that point in time. The data that existed in the 1970s was different than the data we have now. Back then many scientists were proponents of a hypothesis of global dimming, where pollution in the atmosphere would reflect sunlight and ultimately cool the entire world. However, as more years passed it became apparent that the temperature of the earth was getting warmer on average. This is when the consensus on global warming started to form.

Scientific hypothesis are not always correct, this does not discredit the scientific body as a whole. Only a fool would believe that

3. In my hometown we're having an extremely cold winter. So much for global warming!

This argument can essentially be summarized as thus. I stick my hand out the window, it feels kind of cold outside, therefore all the data regarding global warming is irrelevant because it's cold outside. "Global warming must be a farce because it's cold outside today." Does that sound stupid to you? It should, because it's an incredibly stupid and uninformed argument. Temperatures fluctuate, anomallies in temperature occur, this does not change the fact that as a whole the mean temperature of the earth has been rising.

4. Green House Gasses only makes up about 3% of the atmosphere. How can something that makes up such an insignificant amount of our atmosphere have any real effect on climate?

Here's an interesting experiment for anyone who believes this. Fill up a full glass of water, and put just one drop of and extremely potent poison in it, then proceed to drink the whole glass. Don't worry, it can't possibly kill you. After all it only makes up a small portion of the glass of water as a whole.

Sarcasm aside, this argument doesn't hold up because it makes the assumption that there are other parts of our atmosphere that have a significant effect on the temperature of our planet. This is simply not true. Green House Gasses are essentially the only parts capturing and retaining heat. Much like the drop of poison in the glass of water, the percentage of the atmosphere these gasses make up is irrelevant, what is relevant is that there is enough of them in the atmosphere to have a dramatic effect on the earths temperature.

5. Climate Change is more closely correlated to sun activity than it is to green house gas emmissions

This argument would make sense if sunspot activity had increased in the last few decades. In fact it's been in decline, so sun activity can't be used to explain the current increase in temperature. (see graph at bottom)

Unfortunately I've run out of time for now but I'll probably come back and finish this later. If there are any "skeptic" arguments you'd like to see debunked please post them in this thread and I'll do my very best to get to them all.

At 2/2/10 12:06 AM, poxpower wrote: Well some people are fucking retarded, so the "reason" part of their "morality and reason go hand in hand" equation is a little lacking.

D

Honestly I've never really gotten morality. I mean, there are so many examples of morality that are just plain stupid/weird. In islamic countries alcohol is immoral. In India cows are sacred and you're not supposed to eat them. Jews aren't supposed to eat pork. Scientologists say psychiatry is immoral. Just about everyone before the 20th century thought homosexuality was immoral.

Wouldn't it be much easier to just base our laws on what works rather than adhere to some supposedly all encompassing moral code?

At 2/1/10 10:40 PM, Al6200 wrote: I think that morality and reason go hand in hand.

Do you really believe that? I mean sure, someones morality and reason can coincide, but I wouldn't say they go hand in hand. Not with all the examples to the contrary.

Consider this, because someone thought it was a good idea to legislate their personal morality we have:

- Draconian drug laws, that has allowed criminal organizations to monopolize the drug trade.
- Mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have led to overpopulation in our prison system
- A policy that bans homosexuals from serving in the military
- Legislation in some states that explicitly prohibit homosexual marriages or civil unions
- A pro-life movement that would bring us back to the era before roe v wade, where women were dying on the streets getting back alley abortions.

If you want I can go on.

Proteas, seriously, just stop. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to non-sequiturs and other logical fallacies. Even if we ignore the fact that your argument was an ad hominem and perhaps deliberately non sequitur, you can not tell me that this is a productive form of debate:

If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you.

It doesn't address the argument, it's an open insult towards your opponent and frankly it's embarrassing to see a moderator, someone who's supposed to be a role model, acting like this. You're clearly upset, which is understandable given that a discussion like this is bound to be extremely controversial, but it's everyones responsibility on these forums to control themselves and be civil.

At 1/29/10 07:11 PM, Proteas wrote: Are we reading the same topic? He called ad hominem on me for calling his argument style juvenile, and my reasoning for doing so was because he could not actually address anything I said head-on without making a slippery slope or appeal to ridicule out of it. It was far from abusive, and it barely qualifies as a non sequiter as it related to the premise it followed (I wasn't just calling his argument juvenile for the hell of it).

Allow me to explain in more detail how it is a non-sequitur. You say "his argument is juvenile". Your line of logic is thus:

Juvenile Argument => Incorrect Argument

This is not necessarily true. An argument can be juvenile and still be correct. This is almost exactly the same as if you had fallen into a ad hominem fallacy where the logic would be this:

Author is Juvenile => Author's Arguments are Wrong

Personally It seems pretty clear cut to me that this was a case of ad hominem, especially given the last part of your post "If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you" But like I said either way you've fallen into a logical fallacy.

At 1/29/10 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: You're a fucking moron = an attack on you personally, ergo, argumentum ad homein (itself defined as an attack on the person making the argument, not the argument iself).
You're argument is fucking stupid = an attack on your argument, not you, which =/= Argument Ad Hominem.

Regardless, either argument is a non-sequitor. Even if we are to accept that your comments were not a personal attack on coherant, "You're argument is fucking stupid" is still a logical fallacy. An abusive logical fallacy at that.

At 1/29/10 05:02 PM, Coherent wrote: Another thing to look at. All forms of science are based on a process known as the scientific method. Which states that one must come to the most logical conclusion based exclusively on facts and not personal biases. It's not much of a stretch to say most scientist extend this method beyond what is simply their line of work, which is why many Scientists tend to be Atheist. So since scientists tend to be liberal we have to ask does this suggest that liberalism is more in tune with the logic of the scientific method?

So it's not so much that scientists are liberal, it's that proponents of the impartial scientific method are liberal. It doesn't prove anything as correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is interesting. definitely interesting.

At 1/27/10 10:34 PM, animehater wrote: The whole time the man was only addressing the half of the room that agreed with him and pretty much brushed the Republicans aside.

Haven't seen the address yet, but if he really did this I say good for him. I mean really, who cares about the Republicans anymore? Their whole party is a gigantic joke at this point. People should be brushing them off more often.

At 1/25/10 11:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Memorize, why did you RAPE AND MURDER A GIRL IN 1990?~?~?~?~?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

If Memorize really hadn't raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 he would have come out and denied it already. His silence proves his guilt.

At 1/20/10 06:39 PM, adrshepard wrote: I interpret your Engrish to be the following : "Like I said before to others on this board, there are better forums out there."

So I ask you, where?

Not sure that's what he meant to say, but if you're looking for better boards to discuss politics on, these are the ones I tend to browse these days.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=9 &sid=9d5fdfe6301c7b7b449ba6c83a33895d

For less formal political debate and discussion of news

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=8 &sid=9d5fdfe6301c7b7b449ba6c83a33895d

For formal, heavily moderated discussion of news and politics

Most people on newgrounds don't know their ass from their head when it comes to politics, which is why I don't really bother to post here anymore. You'll probably have better luck finding an intelligent, insult-free debate on XKCD

At 1/19/10 08:42 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes you are right...the bill that may get to his desk is not what he originally pushed. But he is continuing to fight for it. He has yet to say: "fuck it...this isn't what I think is right for the American people".

He has his biggest dog in the fight and he's still pushing for it. Passage of this bill is still the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

That is why it continues to be Obamacare.

But don't you see that you just made the argument for why it shouldn't be called Obamacare? It's not Obama's bill anymore. Sure he has had his fair say in it, but there have been huge alterations made to the bill by congress from both republicans, democrats, independants. Obama may support it, but then again so do many other people in congress, we could more accurately call it congress-a-care at this point. But hey, that particular buzz word won't rile up the frothing masses like "Obamacare" now will it?

At 12/20/09 08:02 PM, zrb wrote: ur no Adam Philips, your art isn't worth more than the programmer's coding.

I don't think he was asking for your opinion. If you don't like the way the wages are set, don't join. There's no reason to be an asshole.

And it's still going! This is why I don't post on newgrounds anymore. You're all idiots!

Also ketchup I guess.

Wow, Elfer, thank you for that thoroughly supported and well composed argument. It is an absolute shame that none of these free market activists seem willing to address your points.

Most likely we won't commit to a full out war with the North Korean. Though given all the fuss the North Koreans have been making recently, I think some form of conflict is inevitable. I predict an Operation Desert Fox-esque missile strike on North Korean military targets. Most likely there will be no actual invasion. At the very least, I can guarantee there won't be a pre-emptive one. Not after Iraq.

At 6/8/09 01:51 PM, Al6200 wrote: Do you have a link or know off the top of your head what the threats were to the mother's health?

All the information I have on the subject of the trial I found in the link Memorize posted on the first page. Here it is again in case you missed it. You're right, "mother's health" is a broad definition. In the article they're a bit more specific. The law allows late term abortions if two independent doctors determine that the birth would cause irreparable harm to the mother. All 19 cases had the sign off from two independent doctors.

Now obviously someone called the legitimacy of these abortions in to question, but the doctor was aquitted of all charges, and I don't see any evidence of misconduct during the trial (but please, if you have any evidence of such misconduct let me know), so I can only assume based on what I know that he was innocent of the charges placed against him.

Memorize, late term abortions are allowed to be carried out if the doctor feels that the fetus poses a threat to the mother's health. In all 19 cases the doctor believed the fetus to be a threat to the mother's health. In all 19 cases he had another doctor give a second opinion and confirm that the fetus posed a threat to the mother's health. It's true that there was some controversy over this, and that he was brought to trial over it. However, he was acquitted of those charges, and I don't see any reason to question to the court's decision, so unless you have some evidence of misconduct during the trial you don't have any basis for the argument you're making.

Furthermore, even if he was guilty of the charges placed against him, it doesn't necessarily mean he deserved death. It's not like he was aborting fetus's just for the fun of it. It would appear that he at least believed to be doing it for the somewhat benevolent purpose of helping the woman that was bearing the child. He's not anywhere near the same class as the criminal that ultimately killed him.

Of course, none of that is new information, people like Proteas have been going at it with you since the first page of this thread, and have already promptly defeated all the points you've put forward. Maybe it's time to concede that you were misinformed when you made your original post in this thread and stop presenting arguments that have already been thoroughly debunked?

Seriously, stop beating it to cartoon porn kid. Show a little more respect for yourself.

My dad could beat up your dad.

At 4/19/09 10:39 AM, KemCab wrote: even if it's supposedly grassroots.

And of course, anyone willing to do a little research into the matter will realize that it's not. It's astroturfing organized and sponsored by conservative non-profits with ties to the Republican party. This whole thing is one giant embarrassment in my opinion.

At 4/16/09 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote: *facepalm* worst analogy ever. Its more along the lines of a gunman holding a gun to a person's head and says he'll shoot if his family doesn't meet his demands.

What? That's nothing like what's happening here.

Imagine an old friend of yours drops by your house. No shirt, coke all over his nose, complete train wreck; asks you for some money to get back on his feet. You agree to give him the money, because he used to mean a lot to you. However, you put terms on it. He can't buy coke, he has to put himself in rehab, etc. That's the nature of the contract you're making with your friend. _That_ is what we're dealing with here. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head. These banker's put themselves knee deep in the shit, and if they want to be pulled out, they have to agree to our terms.

At 3/14/09 10:10 AM, Korriken wrote: It would start with those who are willing to form up into 1 government, then the 1 government with its massive military would crush the other governments and take them over. If you combined Europe, the USA, and Israel, into 1 nation with 1 combined army under 1 commander in chief, you would have an army that would make China envious. It wouldn't be hard to bully other nations into joining the global government peacefully. Getting Mexico and many parts of South America to join wouldn't be too hard, given their conditions and the "promise" of a better life for their people under the global government's wing. Many uprisings in other nations in favor of the global government could form, especially in Mexico, where the people have basically no faith in their government.

Your entire argument thus far has been comprised of and based off of assumptions that you have provided no factual basis for. The creation of a world government could happen in any number of ways, it would hardly have to be through the military. The EU is an example of a peacefully and willingly created world government, as is the UN to a much lesser extent. Almost every forceful assimilation of large portions of land have ended poorly. The British Empire is probably the closest thing we've ever come to what you describe and it ended miserably.

You also have no basis to believe that such a government would be oppressive, or totalitarian. There have been plenty of non-oppressive democratic governments that represent the will of the people, and for the record: we both live in one. Almost every oppressive government in recorded history has faced considerable rebellion or collapse at one point or another, and the most stable governments have shown themselves to be democracies. So once again: if anything, the current state of international politics points towards a democratic world government.

Yes, SmileRoyale, I see where you're coming from. However, I've done some more research and I've found that Joe wasn't aware of the taxes he owed until the media started doing research into his background. After he was found out he paid it off, so it would appear we have been arguing based on the false pretense that he knowingly evaded taxes.

However, I find this argument we're having to be very, very interesting so I would like to continue it. Obviously we can't continue with Joe the Plumber as the basis of our debate, since the whole debate depends on the man willingly evading taxes. Instead I propose the new, fictional figure for our debate: "Joe the Illegal Immigrant".

Now Joe the Illegal Immigrant also evades taxes, therefore I propose that you take the side you were formerly arguing, and pursue your point that Joe is simply rebelling against unjust taxation. Fair?

At 3/10/09 06:53 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You make it sound like the founding fathers kicked the British out... out of the mere generosity of their own hearts. As if they had no personal benefit to being the leaders of their own government.

The largest differences between Joe and the Founding Fathers (or any traditional revolutionary) are pretty obvious. The Founding Father's were outspoken about their actions, formed a movement, and tried to have the system changed. Joe didn't do this. He wasn't outspoken about his actions because he didn't want to get caught. He wasn't interested in starting a movement with his "rebelliousness" as the Founding Father's were, but rather was interested in exploiting and leeching off of the current system.

However, if you still insist that they're similar because "they were both just trying to get back that which was rightfully theirs from the evil, insidious government", then consider this: the Founding Fathers lived under a British Monarchy. They were taxed without representation. Joe is/was allowed representation, he is given the same power to vote as anyone else in this country. Thus their situations are completely different.

At 3/10/09 03:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I personally find the fact that Joe Cheated on his taxes, and the fact that he's not a liscenced plumber a good thing [...]
So it turns out that we truly do have an American archetype in Joe Wurzelbacher. He is an outlaw in the same sense that our founders were outlaws. He lives outside the regulations of the state because these regulations attack his freedom and property. It was to end systems such as this that the American revolution came to be. And yet we find ourselves back in exactly the same system, and one incredibly worse in every way.

Joe is not a revolutionary. He is not the modern day equivalent of the founding fathers. He's a criminal who did what he did purely for his own benefit. Is that a good thing? People only obeying the rule of law when it's convenient for them?

Whether the law is valid or not is a moot point. There are proper channels for changing the law. Joe, like everyone else, has the chance to vote for his representatives. If he can not find a representative that supports his views, he is free to leave the country and find somewhere else that better accommodates him. However, he is not free to violate the law, even if he does not agree with it. When you become a US citizen you enter an agreement with the government, and you are contractually bound by your citizenship to obey the rule of law.

And as a side note: please, please stop posting unsubstantiated libertarian rhetoric. Libertarian propagandist #92123 is not an authority on what is and isn't a violation of Joe's "rights" in this country. The supreme court reserves the right to make those kinds of judgments, and I have a feeling that they would not consider property tax a violation of human rights.

At 3/6/09 03:53 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Of course not, that is in violation of their right to their property. you have no right to someone else's property no matter hoe noble your intentions

Moral absolutism is silly. What if the government needs to build a highway that will reduce traffic problems, and thus save lives by preventing accidents, but there's a 70 year old man living in the middle of the area you need to build the freeway on? what are going to do? Are you going to stick to your absolutist principles and let several hundred, if not several thousand, people die a year so one man can keep his property? It's certainly never a desirable solution to kick someone out of their home, but sometimes it is necessary to do for the greater good.

It's like Al said in the original post: your right to swing your arms around ends where my nose begins. You have a right to your property, so long as your right to property doesn't hinder the rights of the rest of society. In this case, the right not be horribly mauled in a car accident.

The internet is vast, and professionals can find their own boards. This forum is 3 forums away from General, and it is what it is.

Do you have any support for this besides fact that this forum is '3 forums away from General'? I don't see why this forum couldn't have areas catered to professionals.

My first post raised question on need and validity of the rules. My second was in response to your holier-than-thou commnet.

How exactly did your first post '[raise] question and need and validity of the rules'? The only thing I can see even resembling an argument is clause 3 where you state: 'Both sides agree structured debates pose more costs of wasting time than they do benefits of not having to read ad hominems.' That is not a supported argument. It's a completely unsupported thesis.

The system of flaming is more persuasive and thought provoking to viewers which is why more people view and post in them. People listen to the loudest idiot over the boring pseudo-intellectual.

Maybe that should signify to you that the structure of the debate should be modified. That way, arguments can be judged by their content and not their empty rhetoric.

It will die out in a week or be constantly derailed unless it's heavily moderated or theres a change in the format.

Once again, nothing to support this claim. No points to counter.

Agreement usually results from compromise. Compromise is a lose-lose scenario. Because someone is voluntarily restraining themselves from full on debate, articulation is not complete.

Nobody says that they have to agree on anything except the rules. They do not have to compromise in the actual debate.

Or person A tries to not feel like an idiot by coming up with more rebuttal, and uses this as motivation for better posts. In case you haven't realised it, 99% of people improve, even under our current "hostile" environment.

If improving entails learning to shout and to search google for links to support your own predetermined argument, then yes, I totally agree with you: everyone improves. However,I disagree with that definition of 'improve'. As it stands, all the current environment serves to do is breed more hostility, which in turn leads to more zealous arguments. This is not an environment that encourages intellectual debate, it's an environment that encourages (and rewards) shouting matches.

It's still efficient, and effective, which is why it's so popularly used, even on the intelligent politics forum.

Efficient and effective, but at what? Becoming an NG phariah through a link bomb contest or making an informed and logical argument? Honestly, I could care less how efficient the current system is at encouraging posters to learn to shout and scream their arguments.

The newground community is NOT the same as the sciforums community, and being blunt,

What exactly do you think is different? You think they're smarter? Hardly. They're actually very similar to our community. A bunch of average joes with a few above average joes and a few below average joes. Hell, they even have their very own 911 conspiracy troll.

letting people know that you think they're idiots is very effective at eliminating ambiguity.

It's also very effective at needlessly alienating people.

What you're suggesting works in real life, but the internet is very low context. You only have words to interpret.

I've already proven it can work on the internet by linking to sciforums.

This just complicates things further, I don't think the extra effort is even worth it in the first place. If this is just here to supplement the "hostile" threads, then people will still be flamed. Your plan works if all threads worked as such, but having both seems unnecessary.

See, I disagree, I think both informal and formal posting is required for rounded political discussion. Informal discussion is great for generating ideas and trading points of view, but isn't so great for actual discourse. formal is the exact opposite: not so much for trading points of view as it is for pitting them up against other well developed arguments. They both have their purposes. If they didn't there wouldn't be a point of having 2 of them.

The current system allows for unpopular opinions to win, if debated effectively, and the people who couldn't debate an unpopular position, probably won't buy into the structured system. Aggrressive posting is at will of the poster, and it's their prerogative to do so.

The current system allows for the most beligerent and outspoken opinions to win, which means it generally leans towards popular opinion. Structured debate counters this by restricting the rhetoric of both sides, allowing arguments to be judged in clarity, without the influence of mobs of posters who all agree with each other and drown out the opposition.

And that's it. As far as I'm concerned this argument is over. I also may add as an afterthought that the very fact we spent so much time debating your obvious logical fallacy is in itself a testament to the 'efficiency' of informal debate. In a formal debate where one of the rules clearly restricted users from making personal attacks, you wouldn't have your attack (and thus you wouldn't have commited ad hominem), and we would have never went on a 3-5 post tangent arguing over whether it was a logical fallacy. So there you go, this very argument is in itself evidence that the structure of our debate here on Newgrounds deserves some reform.