Ad hominem - Wikipedia Ad hominem `` Personal attack '' redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia : No personal attacks. Graham 's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement. Ad hominem ( Latin for `` to the man '' or `` to the person '' ), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. However, its original meaning was an argument `` calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason ''. Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance. Contents 1 Types 1.1 Tu quoque 1.2 Circumstantial 1.3 Guilt by association 2 Non-fallacious reasoning 3 Criticism as a fallacy 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External links Types See also : List of fallacies Tu quoque Main article : Tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque ( literally : `` You also '' ) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is false because it does not disprove the premise ; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument. For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older. Circumstantial Main article : Bulverism Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false ; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy ( an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source ). The circumstantial fallacy does not apply where the source is taking a position by using a logical argument based solely on premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero. Examples : Mandy Rice - Davies 's famous testimony during the Profumo Affair, `` He would ( say that ), would n't he ? '', is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point was that a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false. His denial, in itself, provides little evidence against the claim of an affair. However, this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial ; it does not strengthen the original claim. To construe invalid evidence of the denial as valid evidence of the original claim is fallacious ( on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem and appeal to emotions ) ; however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he is even more likely to deny an affair that never happened. ( For example, inferring guilt from a denial -- or, less starkly, excessive devaluation of a denial -- is a very common feature in conspiracy theories, witch - hunts, show trials, struggle sessions, and other coercive circumstances in which the person targeted is presumed guilty. ) Glassner suggests that Bennett is somehow unqualified to criticize rap music because of positions Bennett has taken on other issues. However wrong Bennett may have been on other issues, such as the funding of public television or illegitimacy, that does not mean that his criticisms of rap were mistaken. Guilt by association Main article : Association fallacy Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows : Source S makes claim C. Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C. Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is. An example of this fallacy could be `` My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for ? '' Non-fallacious reasoning When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact ( testimony ). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial. Criticism as a fallacy Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject 's words. The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning ( discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements ) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality ( or moral claims ), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning ( involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established ) of philosophical naturalism. See also Logic portal Philosophy portal `` And you are lynching Negroes '' Appeal to authority Appeal to emotion Appeal to motive Association fallacy Bulverism Character assassination Discrediting tactic Fair Game ( Scientology ) Fundamental attribution error Gaslighting Hostile witness Negative campaigning Poisoning the well Race card Red herring Reputation Shooting the messenger Smear campaign Straw man Tone policing The Art of Being Right Tu quoque Whataboutism References Jump up ^ `` Ad hominem ''. Merriam - Webster. Merriam - Webster, Incorporated. Retrieved 19 February 2013. Jump up ^ Dr. Michael C. Labossiere ( 2002 -- 2010 ). `` 42 Fallacies : Ad Hominem '' ( PDF ). p. 2. Retrieved 2013 - 10 - 17. Jump up ^ Fowler, H.W. ( 1926 ), A Dictionary of Modern English Usage ( under Technical Terms ) Jump up ^ Walton, Douglas ( 2008 ). Informal Logic : A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 190. Jump up ^ Bowell, Tracy ; Kemp, Gary ( 2010 ). Critical Thinking : A Concise Guide. Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge. pp. 210 -- 213. ISBN 0 - 415 - 47183 - 4. Jump up ^ Copi, Irving M. ( 1986 ). Informal Logic. Macmillan. pp. 112 -- 113. ISBN 0 - 02 - 324940 - 4. ^ Jump up to : Walton, Douglas ( 1998 ). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press. pp. 18 -- 21. ISBN 0 - 8173 - 0922 - 5. ^ Jump up to : Curtis, Gary N. `` Argumentum ad Hominem ''. Fallacy Files. Archived from the original on 20 September 2007. Retrieved 2007 - 09 - 10. Jump up ^ Walton, Douglas ( 2008 ). Informal Logic : A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. Jump up ^ Taylor, Charles ( 1995 ). `` Explanation and Practical Reason ''. Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34 -- 60. ISBN 9780674664760. Further reading Hurley, Patrick ( 2000 ). A Concise Introduction to Logic ( 7th ed. ). Wadsworth. pp. 125 -- 128, 182. ISBN 0 - 534 - 52006 - 5. Copi, Irving M. ; Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic ( 8th ed. ). pp. 97 -- 100. Walton, Douglas ( 1998 ). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa : University Alabama Press. External links Look up ad hominem in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Ad hominem at PhilPapers Nizkor.org : Fallacy : Ad Hominem. Nizkor.org : Fallacy : Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Argumentum Ad Hominem `` University of Winnipeg : Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominen Argument '' ( PDF ). ( 70.2 KB ) Logical Fallacies : Ad Hominem Propaganda techniques Ad hominem Appeal to fear Atrocity propaganda Bandwagon effect Big lie Blood libel Buzzword Censorship Cherry picking Code word Disinformation Dog - whistle politics Doublespeak Fake news Framing Glittering generality Historical negationism Historical revisionism Ideograph Indoctrination Lawfare Loaded language Newspeak Obscurantism Plain folks Propaganda of the deed Public relations Slogan Spin Weasel word Whataboutism Fallacies of relevance Ad nauseam ( Argument from repetition ) Argument from ignorance Appeal to the stone / Proof by assertion Irrelevant conclusion ( Ignoratio elenchi ) Argument from silence Invincible ignorance Moralistic / Naturalistic Rationalization Red herring Appeal to worse problems Two wrongs make a right Special pleading Straw man Cliché I 'm entitled to my opinion Appeals to emotion Fear Flattery Novelty Pity Ridicule Think of the children In - group favoritism Invented here / Not invented here Island mentality Parade of horribles Wisdom of repugnance Spite Genetic fallacies Ad hominem Abusive Association reductio ad Hitlerum Godwin 's law reductio ad Stalinum Circumstantial Appeal to motive Bulverism Poisoning the well Tone Tu quoque Authority Accomplishment Ipse dixit Poverty / Wealth Etymology Nature Tradition / Novelty Chronological snobbery Appeals to consequences Argumentum ad baculum Appeal to force Wishful thinking Other appeals Argument to moderation Popularity List of fallacies Other types of fallacy Philosophy portal Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ad_hominem&oldid=832221634 '' Categories : Genetic fallacies Latin logical phrases Propaganda techniques Rhetoric Informal fallacies Talk Contents About Wikipedia Afrikaans Български Bosanski Brezhoneg Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español Esperanto فارسی Français Galego 한국어 हिन्दी Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Íslenska Italiano עברית Latina Lietuvių Magyar Македонски मराठी Nederlands 日本 語 Norsk Occitan ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski Português Română Русский Scots Simple English Slovenčina Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Suomi Svenska Tagalog Türkçe Українська Tiếng Việt 粵語 Zazaki 中文 42 more Edit links This page was last edited on 24 March 2018, at 16 : 06. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what is the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem
Answer: genetic fallacy