Changes

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] which takes place when one argues by denigrating one's opponent, instead of actually dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed.

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] consisting of denigrating one's opponent, instead of dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed.

== Classical structure ==

== Classical structure ==

Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

Classically, this fallacy is aimed at casting doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.

# A makes claim X.

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==

The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, the most common of which are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].

* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are [[moral relativism|moral relativists.]] Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.

* [[Argumentum ad populum]]

* [[Argumentum ad populum]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]