Why going after someone’s character is easier than addressing their argument
We’ve been building the tools to analyze arguments. Identify premises and conclusions. Distinguish deduction from induction. Spot hidden assumptions. Engage with the strongest version of an argument you hate.
Now comes the fun part. Identifying when someone’s argument is garbage!
These are called fallacies. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes a bad argument appear convincing. They work because they bypass your critical thinking and go straight for your emotions, your prejudices, or your tribal affiliations. They’re everywhere in political discourse, and once you learn to spot them, you can’t unsee them.
Let’s start with the most common one. It’s also the most frustrating because it’s so effective at derailing conversations.
The ad hominem fallacy.
Ad hominem means “to the person” in Latin. Instead of addressing what someone said, you attack who said it. You go after their character, their motives, their appearance, their past behavior – anything except the actual argument they’re making.
Here’s the thing. We do this constantly. Someone makes a point and your brain immediately goes: “Yeah, but they’re a hypocrite” or “They only believe that because it benefits them” or “Of course they’d say that, look at their background.”
All of those might be true. The person might be a massive hypocrite. Their position might absolutely serve their self-interest. Their background might have shaped their worldview in predictable ways.
But none of that makes their argument wrong.
This is what makes ad hominem attacks so seductive. They feel like devastating counterarguments. But you haven’t engaged with the logic. You’ve just changed the subject.
Someone argues we should increase funding for public schools. You respond: “Of course you want that, you’re a teacher.” That’s ad hominem. You’ve suggested their motivation is selfish without addressing whether increased funding would improve education.
The doctor who smokes can still give you accurate information about lung cancer. The politician who cheated can still have sound economic policy. The climate scientist who flies can still be right about carbon emissions.
Here’s what makes this particularly toxic in political discourse. Once you’ve successfully attacked someone’s character, everything they say gets tainted by association. You don’t have to refute their actual arguments anymore. You’ve poisoned the well.
This is why ad hominem is the opposite of the Principle of Charity we talked about in Essay 14. The Principle of Charity says: engage with the strongest version of the argument. Ad hominem says: avoid the argument entirely by attacking the person.
And it works. When someone launches an ad hominem attack, you’re stuck in an impossible position. I experience this all of the time. If you defend yourself, you’ve been pulled off topic. If you ignore it, it looks like you’re conceding the attack might be valid. Either way, the actual argument gets abandoned.
There are different flavors. The abusive version is direct personal attacks. The circumstantial version suggests someone only holds a position because it benefits them. The tu quoque version (Latin for “you too”) accuses someone of hypocrisy.
They’re all the same error. Personal attacks substituting for logical analysis.
Some people think that my arguments in the comments don’t match my more thoughtful essays – but it’s all by design, dear reader. When people lob ad hominem attacks my way, my strategy is to go as low as possible, as quickly as possible, to just speed up the process – and to simply shock people into submission. I assume many are stunned by just how quickly I’ll take it to the floor – but my outlook is – if it’s going there anyway – let’s just get there faster. There was a time I might have tried to reason with people, but I no longer think that’s a productive way to use my time.
Now, let me be clear, I do realize that sometimes personal credibility matters. If someone has a pattern of lying about data, that’s relevant when evaluating their new claims. If an expert witness has been paid to testify, that financial relationship is worth considering.
But you still have to examine the actual evidence. The question is: is the person’s character relevant to evaluating the truth of their claim, or are you avoiding engaging with the argument?
Most of the time, it’s the latter. Most of the time, we attack the person because it’s easier than attacking the argument. We do it because it’s emotionally satisfying. We do it because our team will cheer for us.
But it’s not thinking. It’s performing. No one knows this more than I do. Because it is a very fine line.
So, what is my advice to you?
If you catch yourself going ad hominem, stop. Ask yourself: what’s the actual argument? Can I engage with it on its merits? If the only response you have is to attack the person, you might not have a good counterargument.
And if someone goes ad hominem on you, be an adult and call it out. “I’m not interested in discussing my character. Let’s stick to the argument I made.” Don’t let them turn a debate about ideas into a fight about people.
Why don’t I do this? Because my goals and strategies are different than having thoughtful policy arguments. And they are very obvious if you’ve been paying attention.
Okay. Thanks for sticking with me. This is the first logical fallacy we’re covering, but it’s the most important to internalize. Once you learn to spot ad hominem attacks, you’ll see them everywhere. You’ll realize how much political discourse is just people yelling about each other instead of engaging with ideas.
Go Deeper: If you want to understand the full taxonomy of logical fallacies and why they’re so effective at manipulating thinking, check out “Crimes Against Logic” by Jamie Whyte – he breaks down how bad reasoning is used deliberately to win arguments without ever being right.