Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself. The term comes from Latin, literally meaning “to the person” or “against the person”. Instead of engaging with the substance of what someone is saying, ad hominem shifts focus to irrelevant personal characteristics, background, motives, or qualities of the speaker.

Think of it this way: imagine you’re having a discussion about the best route to take to work, and instead of addressing your suggested route, someone responds with “You’re always late anyway, so what would you know about efficient travel?” That’s ad hominem. They’ve completely sidestepped your actual argument and attacked you personally instead.

The fallacy works by creating a false connection between personal traits and the validity of an argument. But here’s the key insight: even if the personal attack is completely true, it doesn’t make the original argument any less valid. A person’s character, appearance, past mistakes, or circumstances generally have no bearing on whether their reasoning is sound.

Ad hominem attacks come in several distinct forms, each with its own characteristics:

Involves direct personal attacks, name-calling, or insults aimed at discrediting someone’s character. This is the most obvious form - calling someone stupid, incompetent, or morally deficient to dismiss their argument. Rather than engaging with their ideas, the attacker focuses on perceived flaws or negative traits of the person.

You’re too stupid to understand the complexities of this issue.

Only a complete idiot would believe that.

You’re a criminal; your views have no credibility.

You’re an arrogant fool who thinks they know everything.

She’s a liar and a cheat, so why listen to anything she says?

Suggests that someone’s argument is invalid because they have personal motives or would benefit from their position being accepted. Assumes bias without addressing whether the argument itself has merit. Rather than attacking character directly, it questions motives.

Of course he supports that policy; it benefits his company.

You’re just defending your own paycheck, not the truth.

His criticism is just sour grapes after losing the contract.

You can’t argue against raising taxes. Of course you wouldn’t; you’re a billionaire.

Of course you say we need more girls, because you’re a girl.

Dismisses ideas based on who else supports them or what groups the person belongs to. This fallacy suggests that if certain people or organizations agree with someone, their argument must be wrong simply because of those associations.

You support that policy? Well, so Stalin did.

That scientist works for big pharma, so his research can’t be trusted.

She’s friends with a known criminal. How can we trust her moral compass?

It’s hard to believe someone who studied under a known fraudster.

She signed that petition with known conspiracy theorists, so her cause is illegitimate.

Means “you too” in Latin. Points out hypocrisy or inconsistency in the person making the argument. It essentially says “you do the same thing, so you can’t criticize”.

You say smoking is bad, but you smoke yourself!

How can you tell me to save money when you’re always spending recklessly?

You attack my methodology, yet you used the same flawed data in 2015.

You eat junk food every day, so you can’t tell me to eat healthily.

You fly cross-country for speeches, so your carbon footprint is worse.

Preemptively attacking someone’s credibility before they even present their argument. This creates prejudice against the person’s forthcoming statements.

Don’t trust him too much. He’s a known liar.

Before you listen to her, remember she’s been caught lying before.

She’s just a conspiracy theorist. Mind that when you listen to her.

Up next, a so-called expert who has no credentials.

My guest tonight is known to exaggerate facts. View at your own risk.

When someone launches a personal attack, resist the urge to respond in kind. Instead, acknowledge the attack briefly and redirect to the original topic. You might say something like: “I understand you have concerns about my background, but let’s focus on the proposal itself.”

Explain that personal attacks don’t address the argument being made without being confrontational. You might say, “That comment about my personal life doesn’t affect whether this policy would be effective. Can we discuss the actual merits of the proposal?”

If the attack targets a personal trait, provide examples showing how that trait doesn’t relate to your argument’s validity. For instance, if criticized for lack of experience, you could share relevant qualifications that demonstrate your credibility on the specific topic.

Responding with respect, even when facing personal attacks, helps maintain your credibility and makes the attacker appear less reasonable by comparison. This approach often exposes the weakness of relying on personal attacks instead of substantive arguments.

Make is clear about what kind of discourse you’re willing to engage in. You can politely but firmly state that personal attacks aren’t acceptable in the discussion and that you’re only interested in addressing the actual issues at hand.

Always address the substance of arguments rather than the people making them. Ask yourself: “Am I responding to what they’re saying, or am I attacking who they are?” Train yourself to separate the message from the messenger.

Frame your responses in terms of your own perspective rather than making judgments about the other person. Instead of “You’re wrong because…,” try “I see this differently because…”.

Before responding, pause and consider whether you’re genuinely addressing someone’s argument or simply reacting emotionally to disagreement. Ad hominem often emerges when we feel frustrated or threatened rather than when we’re thinking clearly.