True. That is the case. there are really deceitful people who use personal attacks on others. But, it isn't always like that. Such as politicians, good and bad, using personal attacks in debates with each other and still end up winning. It is underhanded and many bad people use it. But, every now and again it can work. Even if it shouldn't.

But, the point of this debate is not about if the tactic is proves if someone is right or wrong. It is to decide if the person has a decent argument left after using a personal attack. Also, I didn't say it had an effect. I just said it was a tactic. P.S. Could we refrain from making assumptions about each other, despite not knowing each other?

Also how can you say that when you've called people retards on this site. Doesn't that mean you have no decent argument left???

What I mean is that science is not perfectly true. I'm not saying science is not true at all. Science relies heavily on human observation. Human observation is flawed. So, science ,by nature, has some flaws. Plus, in the scientific community some things treated as fact are debated. Does it boast the best record? Yes. Is it absolutely true and perfect? No.

What I mean is in a society they can coexist. Which is already the case.

I'm not saying it makes you right or wrong. I'm saying it is a tactic that has be used many times to great effect. Also I didn't say that personal attacks are all arguments are. I know arguments need sound logic and facts in them. I just believe that it can be used and it doesn't mean that they don't have a decent argument left.

Just saying they are opposites doesn't mean anything. Things that are opposite can coexist. And when it comes to science, there have been many scientific things that have been disproved or revised, so the narrative of science being true is somewhat debatable. Besides science ,for the most part, has a lot of theories that can't be completely proved by it's own method. So, some people just believe without evidence. Kind of like religion. :)

I would ask you the same thing. What is 'left wing compassion'. Furthermore, simply calling something right wing automatically 'evil' is very simple minded. But, if I had to define right wing compassion it would be general compassionate feelings that are influenced or apart of right wing qualities and opinions.

Well, it depends on what you mean. Historically, Jesus is considered by many specialists to have existed. It is even taught in many High school AP History classes.BUT, the whole son of God thing is what most people debate about.

I personally think the action of attacking someone personally can be considered a legitimate tactic in an argument. It can easily be used to get a rise out of an opponent and cause them to get emotional, which can make them get defensive and/or angry, causing them to stop using reasonable logic for the sake of defending themselves.