hominem

Ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the opponent rather than addressing the argument's merits. The term is Latin for “to the person.” In discussions of logic and debate, ad hominem is treated as a diversion that shifts attention from the claim to the character, motives, or circumstances of the speaker.

Common forms include: ad hominem abusive (direct insults or attacks on the speaker’s character), ad hominem circumstantial (suggesting the speaker’s situation or interests bias their position), and the tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy by claiming the speaker is inconsistent). Guilt by association and other related tactics are often described as variants of ad hominem. These attacks are typically categorized as a fallacy of relevance, because they aim to undermine the argument by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument’s evidence or logic.

In practice, ad hominem appears in politics, media, and everyday discourse. Example: “You can’t trust his argument on climate policy because he’s not a scientist.” Another instance: “Of course her claim about tax reform is biased; she would benefit from the outcome.” While credibility can be relevant to evaluating a claim, ad hominem attacks usually do not assess the claim itself and therefore do not constitute a sound counterargument.

Countering ad hominem involves focusing on the argument's evidence and logic, or distinguishing legitimate critiques of credibility from improper personal attacks.