Ad hominem attacks

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the speaker rather than the argument, as a means of invalidating the argument.

The term comes from Latin (yes, it’s that old), meaning “to the person.” It was popularized to a new level by philosopher John Locke in the 17th century.

Ad hominem attacks are usually very easy to spot because they target the speaker. However, we can often excuse or ignore them when they’re attacking a speaker we already don’t like.

As discussed below, though, ad hominem attacks are always counter-productive to true argumentation and logic — don’t let them slide, no matter who is making them!

Ad Hominem Attacks vs Insults

There’s an important distinction to make between ad hominem attacks and insults: an ad hominem attack is an insult used to invalidate an argument.

Exceptions

At this point, you may be asking yourself

No, not necessarily! If the personal information about the speaker is truly relevant to what’s being debated, then bringing it up may be appropriate.

However, there are generally only two areas it would be (potentially) relevant:

01. The speaker is part of the topic at hand

02. The speaker is claiming expertise or authority on the topic at hand

What’s important to keep in mind is that the personal information that’s brought up shouldn’t feel like an insult. If, in the above cartoon, the response had been “You lost your medical license for malpractice because you’re a monster!” the bulk of the response may be appropriate, but the insult undermines your credibility.

Remember: just stick to the facts.

Ad hominem attacks pull double duty, acting as both a personal insult and a distraction. They also have a particular allure because they directly tap into our emotions. But ultimately all an ad hominem attack does is help turn a civilized argument into a fight, increasing polarization.