Ad hominem is a Latin phrase that means “to the person.” In logic and rhetoric, ad hominem refers to a fallacy that is committed when someone attacks the character, motives, or other personal attributes of an opponent rather than addressing the substance of their argument. In other words, it is a logical error in which an argument is rejected based on irrelevant personal characteristics of the arguer rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Types of Ad Hominem
Types of Ad Hominem are:
Ad Hominem Abusive
Ad hominem abusive is a type of ad hominem fallacy in which an argument is attacked by insulting the person making the argument.
Examples of ad hominem abusive statements:
- Your argument is stupid and doesn’t make any sense.
- You’re just an idiot who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
- Why should we listen to someone like you who has no expertise in this field?
- You’re clearly biased and your argument is worthless.
- You must be crazy if you think that your argument is valid.
In all of these examples, the argument is attacked not based on its own merits or evidence, but rather by insulting the person making the argument.
This type of ad hominem fallacy is not a valid form of argumentation and does not contribute to constructive and meaningful debate.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial
Ad Hominem Circumstantial is a type of ad hominem fallacy where an argument is attacked by questioning the personal circumstances or motives of the person making the argument instead of focusing on the actual argument itself.
Examples of Ad Hominem Circumstantial:
- Of course you think that, you work for that company.
- Your argument is biased because you are a member of that political party.
- Your argument is invalid because you stand to benefit from it financially.
- We can’t take your argument seriously because you have a personal grudge against the other party.
In each of these examples, the focus is on the personal circumstances or motives of the person making the argument rather than the actual argument itself.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial is a fallacy because it does not actually address the merits of the argument and instead attempts to discredit the person making the argument.
Here, we evaluate the argument based on its own merits and evidence, rather than on the personal circumstances or motives of the person making the argument. The personal circumstances or motives can certainly impact an argument, therefore, they should not be used to dismiss the argument without a proper evaluation of the evidence.
Tu Quoque
Tu Quoque is a type of fallacy where we dismiss someone’s argument by pointing out that they themselves are guilty of the same or a similar behavior. It is also known as the “you too” fallacy.
Examples of Tu Quoque:
- You’re telling me not to drink, but I’ve seen you drink alcohol before.
- You’re criticizing my work ethic, but you’re always leaving early.
- You’re accusing me of being lazy, but you didn’t do your fair share of the work either.
- You’re lecturing me on punctuality, but you’re always running late.
- You’re criticizing my eating habits, but you’re no model of healthy eating yourself.
The above examples shows that the person being criticized is attempting to deflect the criticism by pointing out that the person making the criticism is guilty of the same or similar behavior. This type of fallacy is not a valid form of argumentation because it does not address the actual argument being made.
Ad Hominem Genetic
Ad Hominem Genetic is a type of fallacy that involves dismissing someone’s argument based on their origin or background, rather than evaluating the actual argument itself.
Examples of Ad Hominem Genetic:
- You can’t be taken seriously because you come from a poor family.
- You can’t understand this issue because you’re not from this country.
- Your argument can’t be valid because it comes from a biased source.
- You can’t be trusted because you come from a family with a history of criminal behavior.
In these examples, the focus is on the person’s background or origin rather than the actual argument being made. Ad Hominem Genetic is a fallacy because it attempts to dismiss an argument without actually evaluating the evidence and reasoning presented.
Examples of Ad Hominem
Here are a few examples of ad hominem fallacies in action:
Political Attack Ads
Political attack ads are notorious for using ad hominem attacks to discredit opponents. For example, an ad might attack a candidate’s personal life, character, or appearance instead of addressing their policies or qualifications. Attack ads use ad hominem fallacies to manipulate voters and distract from substantive issues.
Personal Disputes
Ad hominem fallacies can also arise in personal disputes, such as arguments between friends, family members, or colleagues. For example, in an argument between two coworkers about a project, one coworker might attack the other’s character by suggesting that they are lazy or incompetent.
Social Media Debates
Social media debates are fertile ground for ad hominem fallacies. People often resort to attacking their opponents’ personal characteristics or circumstances rather than engaging with the substance of their arguments.
Ad Hominem Sentences
Here are some examples of ad hominem statements:
- You can’t trust his opinion because he’s a convicted criminal.
- She’s just saying that because she’s jealous of my success.
- I can’t believe you’re taking his side; he’s a known liar.
- You’re only saying that because you’re biased against my political beliefs.
Functions of Ad Hominem
Ad hominem arguments are generally considered to be fallacious. They can also serve several functions in discourse:
Divert Attention
Ad hominem arguments can be used to divert attention away from the actual argument being made. By attacking the person making the argument, the focus shifts away from the argument itself.
Discredit the Opponent
Ad hominem arguments can also be used to discredit the opponent and their argument. By attacking the person making the argument, the opponent’s credibility is called into question, making it easier to dismiss their argument.
Personalize the Argument
Ad hominem arguments can also be used to personalize the argument, making it more emotional and less rational. By attacking the person making the argument, emotions can be stirred up and the argument can become more heated.
Ad hominem fallacy is a logical error that is committed when someone attacks the character, motives, or other personal attributes of an opponent rather than addressing the substance of their argument. Ad hominem arguments can serve several functions in discourse, they are generally considered to be fallacious and should be avoided in constructive and meaningful debate.
More to read
