Ad Hominem Fallacy Meaning And Types 

In any argument, it is important to remain focused on the issue or the argument rather than addressing the person making the argument. Sometimes an opponent’s arguments are so flawed, or their reasoning is so poor that attacking their character becomes the only way to make a point. This is known as ad hominem reasoning, and it is a logical fallacy.

What Is Ad Hominem?

Ad hominem is a type of fallacy. It is an argumentative strategy in which one person attacks the character or motives of another person rather than engaging with their argument. This attack can take various forms, from outright name-calling to more subtle forms of character assassination. 

Ad Hominem is a Latin phrase that means “against the man,” It is also named as “Personal attack fallacy” because, in this fallacy, the arguer attacks the person instead of attacking his argument.

The ad hominem fallacy is fallacious because a person’s character does not necessarily invalidate their argument. This is an informal fallacy, which means that it is not a formal error in logic but rather a pattern of reasoning that leads to false or irrational conclusions.

For example, even if someone is biased, they may still make a valid point. Likewise, honest and trustworthy people can still be wrong about something. As such, attacking the person instead of their argument is simply a way to avoid engaging with the issue.

Form Of Ad Hominem Fallacy 

This attack is often seen in politics, where one candidate will try to discredit their opponent by pointing out their flaws rather than addressing the issues. In many cases, ad hominem arguments are used when the attacker doesn’t have a strong counterargument. By attacking the person instead of the argument, they hope to undermine their opponent’s credibility and deflect from the real issue.

 This is the form of Ad Hominem Fallacy.

• Person A makes Claim. 
• Person B attempts to discredit the claim by attacking Person A
• Hence the conclusion is discredited 

Examples

Person A tries to convince Person B to vote for a new law. Person B doesn’t want to vote for the law, so instead of engaging with Person A’s argument, Person B starts making personal attacks. “You’re urging people to vote for this law because you’ll make a lot of money if it passes.” This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, known as an attack on the motives. 

Another form of ad hominem fallacy is an attack on the character. For instance, suppose that Person A is arguing that a new shopping mall should be built in the city center. Person B doesn’t want the mall to be built, so instead of addressing the argument, Person B says, “Person A is just a greedy corporate shill who doesn’t care about anything except making money.”

Types Of Ad Hominem Fallacy? 

There are many ad hominem fallacies, but we’ve narrowed it down to the six that we think are the most common in writing. Here they are: 

Abusive Ad Hominem

The first type of ad hominem fallacy is the abusive fallacy. This occurs when someone attacks their opponent’s character rather than engaging with their argument. 

Example 

Imagine you are debating whether or not animals should be used for scientific experimentation. Your opponent argues that animals should not be used for experimentation because it is cruel and causes them pain.

 In response, rather than engaging with their argument, you say something like, “well, you would know all about being cruel, wouldn’t you?” This is an example of an abusive fallacy because you are attacking your opponent’s character rather than their argument.

 While writing, this is a direct personal attack where someone insults or belittles their opponent. For example, “You’re an idiot for thinking that global warming isn’t real.” 

Circumstantial

The second type of ad hominem fallacy is the circumstantial fallacy. This occurs when someone attempts to discredit their opponent by drawing attention to their circumstances rather than engaging with their argument.

Examples

“You would say that global warming isn’t real because you don’t have to worry about it – you’ll be long dead by the time it affects the world.” 

 Imagine that you are debating the merits of capitalism with someone unemployed. Rather than engaging with their argument, you might say, “of course, you would think capitalism is good. You’ve never had to experience its negative effects.” 

These are examples of circumstantial fallacy because you draw attention to your opponent’s circumstances rather than engaging with their argument. 

Guilt by Association 

This occurs when someone tries to discredit their opponent by associating them with something else considered unacceptable. 

Examples 

Imagine you debating the merits of capitalism with someone who is a member of the Communist Party. Rather than engaging with their argument, you might say, “of course, you would think that capitalism is bad because you’re a communist.” 

In a conversation or a debate about global warming, if you use such a sentence, you’re a global warming denier, just like Donald Trump.

In these examples of the guilt-by-association fallacy, you try to discredit your opponent by associating them with someone else who has already been discredited. 

Tu Quoque

This occurs when someone attempts to deflect criticism by pointing out that their opponent is also guilty of the same thing they are accused of. 

Example

 “You’re hypocritical by saying global warming is real – you still use plastic straws!” 

In this example, you are deflecting criticism rather than engaging with it.

Ad Feminam

 This occurs when someone attempts to discredit their female opponent by invoking stereotypes about women. This fallacious line of reasoning is often used in politics and debates about social issues. 

 The ad feminam fallacy is particularly dangerous because it can be used to distract from the actual issues at hand and instead turn attention to irrelevant personal attacks. 

This fallacious line of reasoning also has the potential to silence opposing voices, as people may be less likely to speak up. If they know, they will be subjected to personal attacks. The best way to avoid falling prey to the ad feminam fallacy is to focus on the arguments and not on the person making them.

Example

Calling someone’s viewpoint irrational because she is a woman or due to gender discrimination. 

“I can’t believe you would vote for Jane because she’s a woman. You’re just trying to make history by electing the first female president.”

Applause Light 

The applause light is an ad hominem argument that seeks to discredit your opponent by pointing out their argument is popular or unpopular. 

Examples

 Imagine that you are debating whether or not global warming is real. Your opponent argues that it is indeed real and caused by human activity.

 You could then say something like, “Well, I guess if everyone else jumped off a bridge, you would too!” By suggesting that your opponent only believes in global warming because it is popular, you’re trying to make them seem not to think for themselves. 

The important thing to remember is that when you’re tempted to attack someone personally instead of addressing their argument, you’re probably committing an ad hominem fallacy.

Is Ad Honimen Fallacy Perfect For Winning Any Argument?

This is a very common fallacy and one that is easy to commit. After all, when we are angry or upset, it is easier to lash out at the person we are arguing with rather than try to refute their point. However, if you want to win every argument from now on, I suggest you learn how to use the ad hominem fallacy to your advantage. 

Attacking The Character Of Your Opponent

Suppose you are arguing with someone about whether or not global warming is real. Your opponent says that global warming is real and caused by human activity. 

You could attack their character by saying, “You’re just saying that because you’re a tree-hugging hippie who wears Birkenstocks!” Now, your opponent may be a tree-hugging hippie who wears Birkenstocks, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong about global warming. 

All you have done is attack their character instead of addressing their argument.

H3 Attacking The Credibility Of Your Opponent

Another way to commit this fallacy is by attacking the credibility of your opponent. Let’s say you are arguing with someone about whether or not the moon landing was faked. 

Your opponent says that the moon landing was real and cites Buzz Aldrin as a source. You could attack their credibility by saying, “Buzz Aldrin is a liar! He was never on the moon!” Even if Buzz Aldrin is a liar, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t on the moon. 

All you have done is attacked his credibility instead of addressing his argument. 

The next time you find yourself in an argument, don’t let emotions get in the way of winning! Use the ad hominem fallacy to your advantage by attacking your opponent’s character or credibility. Remember, when using this tactic, never address the argument itself.

This is all for the Ad-hominem fallacy. It is a logical error and a type of informal fallacy. When people attempt to discredit the argument by attacking other personalities is ad hominem. To make you understand, we have presented the types of ad hominem fallacy with examples. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Is Ad Hominem Fallacy Effective?

The ad hominem fallacy is not an effective way to argue your point. It’s considered a logical fallacy because it’s an argument that doesn’t rely on reason or evidence. Instead, it relies on personal attacks against the other person, which usually have nothing to do with the issue.

When you resort to ad hominem attacks, you’re saying that the other person is wrong because they’re a jerk, or because they’re stupid, or because they don’t know what they’re talking about. But none of those things have anything to do with whether their argument is valid. 

How Do You Use Argumentum Ad Hominem In a Sentence?

A personal attack is necessary to use Argumentum ad hominem in a sentence. When an argument is based on personal attacks instead of the evidence or logic presented, this is arguing ad hominem. For example, “You’re biased against my position because you’re bald” is an ad hominem attack because it’s irrelevant to the argument.

What Are The Substance Of An Argument?

The substance of an argument is its logical premises and conclusion. An argument must be valid, meaning the premises logically support the conclusion. If an argument is invalid, it can be easily refuted by showing that evidence does not support one of the premises.

To determine whether or not an argument is sound, we must also determine whether or not the premises are true. If any premises are false, then the argument will be unsound.

 It’s important to note that even a valid but unsound argument can still persuade people to believe its conclusion if they have no other reasons to doubt it.