喺呢場對話入面,B 君避開唔直接噉應對 A 君個論證,而改為攻擊佢嘅個人動機,但哲學界一般認為,一個描述緊客觀事實嘅論證合唔合理係唔應該受制於講嗰個人嘅身份嘅,而正如 A 君所講嘅噉,無論呢啲理據由一個天主教徒、佛教徒定係任何人開口講出嚟,都仲會係理據。B 君用人身攻擊嘅原因有好多,可能佢覺得佢冇能力正面噉回應 A 君個論證,又或者佢真係以為人身攻擊可以幫到佢否定 A 君啲證據[44][45]。
C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies, Methuen London, 1970. reprinted by Vale Press in 1998 as ISBN0-916475-24-7.
Hans V. Hansen; Robert C. Pinto (1995). Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings. Penn State Press. ISBN978-0-271-01417-3.
Frans van Eemeren; Bart Garssen; Bert Meuffels (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion. Springer. ISBN978-90-481-2613-2.
Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Douglas, Walton (1987). Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Walton, Douglas (2010). "Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are". Informal Logic. 30 (2): 159–184.
John Woods (2004). The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning. Springer. ISBN978-1-4020-2663-8.
Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959.
Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN87-991013-7-8
D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks, 1970.
Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998.
Sagan, Carl, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark". Ballantine Books, March 1997 ISBN0-345-40946-9, 480 pgs. 1996 hardback edition: Random House, ISBN0-394-53512-X, xv+457 pages plus addenda insert (some printings). Ch.12.
Frans, van Eemeren; Bart, Garssen; Bert, Meuffels (2009). "1". Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. p. 2.
van Eemeren, Frans; Garssen, Bart; Meuffels, Bert (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonablene Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
Argument, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "In everyday life, we often use the word "argument" to mean a verbal dispute or disagreement. This is not the way this word is usually used in philosophy. However, the two uses are related. Normally, when two people verbally disagree with each other, each person attempts to convince the other that his or her viewpoint is the right one. Unless he or she merely results to name calling or threats, he or she typically presents an argument for his or her position, in the sense described above. In philosophy, arguments are those statements a person makes in the attempt to convince someone of something, or present reasons for accepting a given conclusion".
Bustamente, Thomas; Dahlman, Christian, eds. (2015). Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. p. x.
Nieminen, P., & Mustonen, A. M. (2014). Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 7(1), 11.
Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2006). Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 323–338.
Lillo-Unglaube, M., Canales-Johnson, A., Navarrete, G., & Bravo, C. F. (2014). Toward an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1420.
Frans, van Eemeren; Bart, Garssen; Bert, Meuffels (2009). "1". Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. p. 2.
Frans, van Eemeren; Bart, Garssen; Bert, Meuffels (2009). "1". Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. p. 3.
Frans, van Eemeren; Bart, Garssen; Bert, Meuffels (2009). "1". Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. p. 4.