I’m starting a new series.
I’ve always loved debating. I took two debating classes in high school, and I used to take debating books out of the library when I was younger. Granted, I’m a much different debater than I was, say, 20 or 30 years ago.
Today, I try to stick to the points at hand and not get distracted with what are logical fallacies, which are reasonings that are logically unsound and that weaken the validity of a debater’s argument.
There are lots of fallacies, and over the next few weeks and months, I will occasionally focus on a fallacy. While fallacies are typically from the debating sphere and may seem out of place on a blog dedicated to writing, they do appear in writing as well. And not just in social media and blog comments either. They can appear in website and marketing copy, political speeches, opinion pieces, and so on.
Today’s fallacy is ad hominem.
What is the ad hominem fallacy?
Ad hominem is a Latin phrase that literally means “to the man/person”. When someone uses the ad hominem fallacy, they redirect their comments toward the character of a person rather than address the points raised by that person.
Examples of the ad hominem fallacy
Personal experience
Here’s an example.
Recently, I wrote a blog post about Mormonism on a personal blog. In it, I raised several points about a certain topic. Someone responded with:
Thanks for the references. It’s great to have living apostles and prophets today.
The commenter refused to engage with the content of my post, ignoring the points I raised. I responded with:
You’re welcome. I’m glad you can now see the rhetoric exists rather than deny it.
This was in reference to a comment he left on another post of mine and that was partly responsible for my writing the post mentioned above. It was my attempt to encourage him to engage with my points. Here was his response
I see you are using the old anti-Mormon trick of bait and switch. Sorry, but I said I had never encountered [the things you mentioned in your post].
This is where the ad hominem fallacy appears. Rather than engage with the points I raised in the post, he tries to dismiss me by labelling me as “anti-Mormon”. The ad hominem fallacy is a technique debaters use to discredit their opponents by calling into question their integrity. In this case, if I’m anti-Mormon, then he can ignore me because I must have an axe to grind or something, and if I have an axe to grind then there must be no validity in the points I raised.
Other examples
Here are some other examples of the ad hominem fallacy:
- Trump said that Canadians are smuggling American shoes across the border because tariffs are so high in Canada, but he is a liar, so it’s probably not true.
- While Trump may indeed pathologically lie, one must be careful about using that as an excuse to ignore a point he raises. If the data shows that Canadians aren’t smuggling American shoes across the border, then fine, ignore him. But don’t dismiss his claim just on the grounds of his character. Dismiss the claims because they’re provably false.
- One person says to a shoplifting friend, “Don’t shoplift. You might get caught and be in trouble.” The other friend responds, “Dude, you shoplift all the time.”
- While it may be true that the first person shoplifts “all the time”, that doesn’t change the fact that the second person could get caught and be in trouble.
- A woman sues an ecclesiastical leader for sexual abuse. His lawyer brings up a former fraud charge she had received.
- Having been charged with fraud does not mean that the alleged sexual assault didn’t happen. Nor does it mean the accuser is lying in this case.
- A mayoral candidate wants to lower taxes. An opponent responds, “You want to lower taxes? You’re $100,000 in debt!”
- Being in debt is irrelevant to the merits of the argument for lowering taxes.
Focusing on someone’s character instead of the points they raise is unfair to them (it’s borderline bullying), and it’s intellectually lazy for you. Hopefully, these examples explain the importance of focusing on an opponent’s claims rather than their personality.
Which logical fallacy should I cover next? Let me know in the comments below.
