Trump's name-calling a debate-winning tactic learned from the best: Mehdi Hasan

MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan is still trying to figure out how a "wholly unqualified reality TV star defeated sixteen GOP rivals" to win the presidential election in 2016 – but he thinks he has an inkling.

In an excerpt from his new book published in Rolling Stone, Hasan argues that Donald Trump's tactic of name-calling attacks on his rivals during the 2016 campaign was also deployed by one of the most "respected and accomplished orators and debaters in history."

"Back in Ancient Rome, the statesman, lawyer, and rhetorician Marcus Tullius Cicero was notorious for the invective he rained down upon his rivals. As the classical historian Valentina Arena has pointed out, in one famous argument, Cicero called his opponent Piso, the father-in-law of Julius Caesar, a belua (“monster”), bustum rei publicae (“funeral pyre of the commonwealth”), carnifex (“butcher”), furcifer (“scoundrel”), maialis (“gelded pig”), and inhumanissimum ac foedissimum monstrum (“most foul and inhuman monster”).

Cicero, Arena added, also mocked his opponent’s physical appearance, including his “hairy cheeks and discolored teeth.” (Positively Trumpian!)" Hasan writes in the book "Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking."

Hasan points out that in certain sports, you're supposed to attack "the ball, not the man." But as soon as you break that rule, you're penalized. The problem is that despite ad-hominem attacks being illegitimate, they're incredibly effective.

"...in the real world, playing the ball and the man can prove to be a rather effective, and often necessary, tactic," Hasan writes. "It can discredit your opponent and their argument at the same time. It can win over a skeptical crowd and give you the upper hand. And — I’ll let you into a well-kept secret — it’s not necessarily a fallacious argument either."

Hasan concludes that an "inconvenient truth" is that to win any argument, "you need to establish your own authority and expertise while challenging your opponent’s. And for that, you do sometimes need to rely on ad hominem arguments."

Read the full excerpt over at Rolling Stone.