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???

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.

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.