Argumentum ad hominem
The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any arguement that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.[1] It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it. As such arguments have nothing to do with the topic, they have no weight or validity against the argument. This is the case even if the attack is true; two plus two still equals four even if the first person to point this out was the most morally reprehensible person to have ever lived.
Strict usage
Many people like to toss around the phrase ad hominem because it sounds cool, when they really mean they are being replied with argumentum ad personam, a related term that simply means that their arguments are being answered with insults.
An example:
“”"Take Teresita's articles with a grain of salt, she admitted to me on Conservapedia that she was a Taoist."
|
A real ad hominem attack is valid if there is something about the person making the original assertion which can be shown to discredit the evidence presented by that person. For instance, Hillary Clinton says she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, but she was born six years before Sir Edmund distinguished himself by the first ascent of Mt. Everest. Pointing this out is making a valid ad hominem attack on her veracity.
Subtle uses
Often, ad hominem attacks are used subtly in order to influence the views of spectators. There are many forms of this, such as pointing out bad things they (The opponent) have done in the past in arguments about morality (They are not attacking the person's points about morality, they are attacking the person), or using exclamations (for example, "Jeez!") to imply that the person is incredibly slow at understanding your point. While ad hominem attacks are used mostly in arguments about philosophy or morals, it can also be used in other debates, such as when people supporting evolution are said to be "justifying genocide and mass suicide", though this could also be referred to as a straw man fallacy.
Blatant uses
Ad hominem attacks are hardly ever used plainly, and people who do are generally trolls who want to provoke people to fight. These are often partnered with not even responding to the person's post, using arguments that make no sense, and thus have never been heard of, then mocking their opponent when they fail to find a rebuttal, and many other such techniques.
False positives
Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact.
See also
- ↑ This was part of the definition used on the University Challenge question on the subject. And who are we to doubt the Almighty Paxman?