This thesis investigates the use of ad hominem arguments in American political debates in relation to the degree of polarization. The types of ad hominem arguments, the fallaciousness of the...Show moreThis thesis investigates the use of ad hominem arguments in American political debates in relation to the degree of polarization. The types of ad hominem arguments, the fallaciousness of the arguments and the use of mitigation techniques are examined in this. Since an increase in polarization in United States politics is visible and ad hominem arguments are a symptom of polarization, one could expect an increase in frequency of ad hominem usage and an increase of frequency of fallacious ad hominems. Since Trump is perceived as the cause of the increasing polarization according to surveys, it could be expected that he uses more ad hominem arguments and more fallacious ad hominem arguments than his opponent. To test these hypotheses, a corpus was composed of 6 American presidential debates, 3 from the 2008 presidential campaigns and 3 from the 2016 presidential campaigns. To analyse this corpus, the four types of ad hominem arguments that Tindale (2007) distinguishes serve as guidelines. Tindale’s (2007) critical questions for identifying and evaluating ad hominem arguments are used to determine the fallaciousness of the arguments. The use of Ilie’s (2004) mitigation techniques within the corpus is also examined. This way, this study attempts to connect the evaluation of ad hominem arguments to polarization in politics. This study shows that the frequency of ad hominem use in the 2016 presidential debates was more than twice as high as in 2008. The frequency of ad hominem use was nearly equal between Trump and Clinton, but Trump’s fallacious ad hominem use had a significantly higher frequency. The amount of mitigation strategies used in the debates was found to be near zero. This means that some of the outcomes of this study are in line with the expectations: the increase in ad hominem frequency in 2016 versus 2008 and Trump’s higher frequency of fallacious ad hominem use. The fact that Trump and Clinton used a nearly equal amount of ad hominem arguments in the debates and the fact that the use of mitigation techniques was rare was not in accordance with expectations. Overall, the ad hominem use in the debates seems to support the idea of an increase in polarization in American politics. The ad hominem use in the debates also seems to support the idea that Trump has a relatively big influence on this increase, compared to his opponent.Show less