[Article] 言葉の泉に毒を盛る Poisoning the Well

(English version is following Japanese one)

[論文] ウォールトン, D.N. 2006．「言葉の泉に毒を盛る」．『アーギュメンテーション』．20巻．273-307頁

ていうかこっちは逆。和訳できません。
"Poisoning the well"にあたる言い回しが思いつきません。なんだろう。
argumentum ad hominem（これも和訳が思いつかない。人格攻撃？ちょっと違うか…）の一種で、「誰かが発言する事前にその人の信用を落としたり、特定の意味に解釈させやすくしておく」ことを指すようです。特定の民族（ユダヤ人や朝鮮人）が井戸に毒を盛ったという噂によって起きた迫害と関連している可能性もありますが、元々ニューマンが使った部分の説明で「Kingsley had poisoned the well of discourse」という用いられ方をしているので、まあ「言葉の泉に毒を盛る」という訳にしてみました。

内容は大変興味深く読みました。特に出てくる具体例がどれも示唆深かったように思います。

ディベートでは、私達が何者であるかは議論に影響しないのだと繰り返し教わるわけです。特に審査員を務めるときは、できるかぎりこうした「言葉の泉に毒を盛る」行為の影響から自由であろうと努めるわけです。しかし現実の社会は違うのでしょうか。また違うべきなのでしょうか。わかりません。私は、実社会でもディベータとしての信条をそのままにしていたい。けれど最近（特に例のバンクーバー以来）少し混乱気味です。

[Article] Walton, D.N. 2006. Poisoning the Well. Argumentation. vol.20. pp.273-307

mmm... this one is opposite. I can't translate this to Japanese.
What's Japanese word for "poisoning the well"??
It's a kind of argumentum ad hominem but points only ones done preemptively.
mmm... for now, I just translate it as "Kotoba no Izumi ni Doku wo Moru" considering the Newman's usage of this phrase.

The content of this article is very interesting. I especially enjoyed examples.

In debating, we are repeatedly taught that it doesn't matter who we are, that argumentum ad hominem should not be awarded. We especially try to avoid to take "poisoning the well" type of "fallacy" in count when we adjudicate. But is "real world" outside of debating different? And should it be different? I don't know. I hope to stay consistent. But I'm recently(especially after Vancouver) a bit confused on this.

(followings are citation from the article)
---------------------------------
The poisoning the well type of argument can be very dangerous. It can shut down a discussion by disqualifying one arguer from putting forward any argument, no matter how good it is, or how much it based on good evidence, simply because any argument he puts forward will always be seen as simply reflecting this same bias. His (or her) arguments will always be seen as biased and one-sided, and therefore limited and unconvincing. If disqualified as arguments that only promote or advocate an interest, pushing ahead covertly for gains for an interest group, they can be discounted, even though they may have merit, and be worth considering. (p.276)
----------------------------------
The attack can be based on several grounds. One is an allegation that the arguer has a character that is ethically bad in some respect, for example that he is a liar. Another is that his personal circumestances are in conflict with his argument. Another is that he is biased - for example, it might be argued that he has something to gain by taking the view he does. (pp.278-279)
----------------------------------
And indeed, if a person has a bad character for veracity, for example a witness in a criminal case, then attacking that person's character in order to make his or her testimony seem less plausible toa jury can be a reasonable form of argument. For example, in legal argumentation, it can be admissible as evidence for an attorney cross-examining a witness to attack the character of the witness for honesty. Because this type of argument is sometimes legitimate, it is something of a misnomer to call it the "abusive" ad hominem argument. In Aristotle's Rhetoric (Garver, 1994), argument from ethos (character) was regarded as highly important in public speaking, and in rhetoric of all kinds, and was recognized as a legitimate kind of argumentation. (p.286)
----------------------------------
In the bias type of attack, the arguer is said to have a personal bias, often in the form of a financial interest or something to gain. For example, suppose a speaker in an environmental debate, who has played down the damage of acid rain in the debate, is shown by her opponent to have ties with a large industrial corporation. This corporation may have much to lose by costly environmental controls that might be placed on industrial pollution. (p. 287)
-----------------------------------

[English vocab for masako]
irreducibly, presupposition, innuendo, smear, perverse, stalemate, deteriorate, forestall, construe, taint, argumentum ad verecundiam, diffident, retort, contend, close off, tu quoque, veracity, whiff, lingering, misnomer, adept, virtue