Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument Against the Man)

The English translation for the Latin phrase, "Argumentum ad Hominem," is an "Argument against the Man or Woman," or more accurately, "Argument against the Person."

There are two persons involved here. The first person advances a statement or an argument and the second person responds not by substantiating the issue or claim in the statement or the argument but by attacking the person or the character of the proponent.

It can be illustrated in this form:

A makes a claim.
B. makes an attack on person A.
Therefore, A's claim is false.


This kind of fallacy is associated with "character demolition" which is common in political debates and in court proceedings. In political debates, participants find it easier and advantageous to discuss personalities and engage in mudslinging, rather than discuss the issues in the debate. In court proceedings, a smart trial lawyer may focus more on destroying the credibility of the witness rather than give more weight on the volume of evidences presented by the witness.

Example:

1. Senator A claims that the legal age for marriage should be decreased from 18 to 15.
2. But we all now that Senator A is not a good performing senator, a practicing homosexual, and a corrupt government official.
3. Therefore, the legal age for marriage should be 18 instead of lowering it to 15.

In premise 1, the first person is the senator making the claim. In premise 2, the second person drops, ignores, or disproves the truth of the claim, and attacks the person or character of the specific senator advancing the statement or argument. The truth of the conclusion turns out a complete opposite to the truth of the claim. This constitutes the fallacy. There is no material and logical correlation between the premises and the conclusion; something which is required for valid arguments.

Fallacies

Fallacies are the errors in reasoning. A fallacy is committed when we accept a position or persuade others to accept our claim based on weak line of reasoning. Fallacies are usually divided into 2 groups:

1. Formal Fallacies are known as morphological fallacies because it can be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument.
2. Informal Fallacies are known as contextual fallacies becuae they can be detected only through analysis of the content of the argument.

It is important to study fallacies so that we will know how to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning, enable ourselves to think critically, open ourselves to the truth, and free ourselves from the manipulation of those skilled in the art of rhetoric. It is good for us to identify and name each of the fallacies, understand their respective mechanics and examples so that when confronted with some erroneous reasoning we are most confident that we can outsmart our opponents and eventually win any debate exercise.