Ad Hominem

Abusive Ad Hominem and Circumstantial Ad Hominem

There are two main kinds of ad hominem fallacy: the abusive ad hominem fallacy and the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

Here is a simple example of an abusive ad hominem argument:

The argument is that Jake is wrong because he “is a fool.” There is no attempt to counter Jake’s argument, whatever that may be.

Here is a simple example of a circumstantial ad hominem argument.

The argument is that Jake is too biased against the school board to make a sound judgment. However, there is no attempt to address Jake’s current argument against the school board.

Fig. 2 - To be logical, address Jake's argument.

The abusive ad hominem argument and circumstantial ad hominem argument are logical fallacies. But why?

Why the Ad Hominem Argument Is a Logical Fallacy

A logical argument counters an opponent's logic. Logical arguments stay on track and result in learning.

The ad hominem argument does not counter the logic of an opponent. Instead, it attacks the opponent, which is irrelevant in terms of logical argumentation. All that matters is the argument—not who is presenting the argument.

Thus, the ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy.

Types of Ad Hominem

Here is a list of some ad hominem attacks. These types are more specific than the broader abusive ad hominem fallacy and circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

• The ad personam fallacy occurs when an arguer derails the debate by ignoring the debate and attacking the person's character:

• Tu quoque is when an arguer attacks someone’s character, and the attacked person replies, “You are just as bad or worse.”

• An arguer using ex concessis says that if your current and past views differ, your current view cannot be correct.

• Guilt by association occurs when an arguer attacks someone based on others who hold the same view.

• An arguer using the argument ad feminam discredits someone for being a woman.

• The name-calling fallacy occurs when someone calls someone else names.

As you can see in the above exchange, ad hominem attacks come in a wide variety and can go on pointlessly—masquerading as a debate! You should be on the lookout for any one of these ad hominem arguments or a combination of them.

Fig. 3 - A heated debate might lose focus on the arguments.

Functions of Ad Hominem

It’s easy to see why people use ad hominem attacks. They are hurtful, break someone down, and can discredit someone in front of a non-academic audience. While experts in a field might dismiss or at least identify ad hominem attacks, the average person is unequipped to understand that logic follows the argument, not the person.

Ad hominem arguments can be used in essays and papers, debates, and just about anywhere a disagreement occurs.

Example of Ad Hominem in an Essay

Here is an example of how an ad hominem fallacy might appear in an essay.

Try to count and identify the ad hominem arguments here. They are listed below.

• “Kirsch, ever the complainer” is an abusive ad hominem fallacy.“The dinosaur” is an example of name-calling.“He would also see how waffling he has done over the years” is an example of ex concessis.Attacking Kirsch based on deJoan’s endorsement is guilt by association.

How to Counter an Ad Hominem Argument

Looking at an essay passage like this one, you might wonder, “Where does one begin to defend themselves?”

Ideally, you wouldn’t defend yourself. Your goal should not be to counter your opponent’s ad hominem argument, because this would be to surrender to the logical fallacy. Instead, you should identify the fallacy and bring the conversation back to the argument.

How to Avoid an Ad Hominem Argument

Finally, you don’t want to commit an ad hominem fallacy yourself. Here are three ways to ensure you don’t go off the rails.

Don’t write while angry. When you write while angry, you are more likely to heat up and leave the facts behind. Logic is cold and dispassionate; it follows the facts.

Don’t emphasize the person. Instead of attacking the person presenting the argument, attack the argument itself. Logic is only concerned with the argument, not who offers it.

Follow a line of reasoning. Logic should follow from previous arguments and so on. When you draw a conclusion, be sure it is based on evidence and stays on track.