Why, when something becomes politically animated, do standards tend to be lowered?<p>HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument, has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree" (<a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?</a>)<p>The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages."<p>There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such as name-calling, <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully reasoned refutations.<p>Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights - therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office."<p>Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and "contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.")<p>I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position.<p>My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?