Ad Hominem (Appeal to Personal Attack)

Educate others about the infamous logical fallacy "Ad Hominem". Ad hominem is a red herring in which you attack the person making the argument rather than criticize the argument itself. This is an extremely common logical fallacy.
Music: / electronic-joy

[@T3hTroll]

i did Nazi that coming.

[@Nail3728]

That took me a few seconds. ..boooo

[@nataliewilliams9741]

LOLOLOLOL

[@neolithicsounds6900]

.. dad jokes

[@ajnur4466]

@@neolithicsounds6900 i swear

[@davidannohjr.4891]

That's actually funny

[@JDMumma]

I understand Ad Hominem to be defined as: An direct attack on an opponent's character rather than focusing on the claims (premises and conclusions) being offered by the opponent.

[@diadiaa892]

In other words feminists.

[@diadiaa892]

@don't waste your time reading my name idiot looooll issa joke. have a nice day :))

[@yesimkhanh9932]

@@diadiaa892 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣i haven't expected it coming

[@alicefish4439]

I'm using your videos again while teaching the Art of Argument course from Classical Academic Press. I wanted to thank you for your clear and visually pleasing explanations and entertaining examples.

[@IIBloodXLustII]

Playing League of Legends just a moment ago I was being called bad because I couldn't outpush an Anivia. I then argued that point, to which my accuser just called me an idiot and left. Ad Hominem at its most... common.

[@izvarzone]

that's why I used "/mute all" command at beginning of each game.

[@gregallenphoto]

More please.

[@AMOR-Logion]

+Greg Allen #done

[@novaman3509]

As someone who's study psychology, human biology and evolution for the majority of my life, I feel confident in saying those who throw the "Ad hominem." card use it as a way out when they have backed themselves into an argumentative corner. The phrase "Ad hominem" seems to be used in a similar way to the way feminists use the word "Rape". Both seem to be used as escape words, when the user has no idea how to continue an argument.

[@barbecueslop3752]

@God Exists "atheists and evolutionist. they keep calling creationists idiots" Just plain calling someone an idiot isn't ad hominem. Calling someone an idiot IN RESPONSE to someone's argument is ad hominem. While creationists are indeed idiots, "You're an idiot," isn't the counterargument atheists and evolutions provide to creationists...

[@Aleitheo]

On top of that it is often creationists who engage in ad honinem attacks. "The Nazi's used evolution", "you don't believe in God because you just want to sin" and "you just hate God" are common attacks used by creationists and many Christians in general.

[@KandleGuii]

Come Back & Make More Of These.......Please, It Would Be Greatly Appreciated .........

[@AaronTraasGsuite]

@Gnomefro Pointing out a conflict of interest says nothing about the truth of the argument. It can say something about the motivation, or your motivation for believing/disbelieving, but it does nothing to attack or diffuse the truth of the statement.

[@Thimbledunk]

Yes, the problem here is that it's perfectly valid to point out that someone may have other motivations for saying what they do, and these are not always strictly 'ad hominem'. That someone is paid by the tobacco cvompany has perfectly legitimate potential bearing on what they say about tobacco, and is actually a point about the general factors included in the argument, not an external insult. Even questioning someone's education may be valid - as in cases of expertise.

[@chikachikaslimshady1]

Good idea man, good idea. I've been looking for something like this...

[@Mizzsapphire143]

Very clear point. 😉 Thanks for this video. 👍

[@bugbiceps2506]

Haha, that means, when someone calls me a noob in a video game, he is never right, because everything he would say would not be an argument, right?

[@AelfricLake]

+Bugbiceps No it would be argument of you being noob. This fallacy is for when people doesn't want the talk about the issue or the argument itself but attack the creator of the argument verbally so that their arguments is less valuable in other's eyes. It is mostly used in politics very successfully cuz common people mostly not aware of popularist methods like this. And most of the time it is way easier to attack the person rather than discussing the argument if you know deep inside you are wrong but don't want to be put in that position just for ego issues.

[@izvarzone]

I was called noob once after winning round with SCAR-20 in CS:GO. By the guy I pwned. What makes it him, noober than noob? (in truth he is; if he wasn't noob, he would use flash and smoke grenades more to counter me) I don't care if it takes more skill to kill with AWP. I don't call anyone noobs because ppl kill with awp instead of scout (takes more skill) or nova shotgun (takes even more skill)

[@Thimbledunk]

@totustuusmaria Another wise saying is 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.

[@Icantseewhynot]

so, what are you basically saying, is that because people do not mention ad hominem attacks on the real life they do not exist? I

[@destineysmiley2656]

What was used to make this? I have a week long english project and we need to make a video like this one and I'm having trouble; please help.

[@AMOR-Logion]

+Destiney Smiley After Effects

[@octaviusdelmonte9019]

If you don't look good enough you're not right about anything.

[@izvarzone]

My boots or sweater have nothing to do whether statement is true or false. If someone with better cloth say exactly same thing as I did, it's the same statement.

[@noxteryn]

An ad hominem is valid when used to counter an appeal to authority. For example, John argues that women are inherently inferior to men by quoting Aristotle's views. Tim can argue that Aristotle was a misogynist, therefore his opinions on women are biased at best. Of course, this isn't the best option, because countering a fallacy with another fallacy is not very productive, but the use of the argument is valid. John uses Aristotle's authority to bolster his thesis, and Tim attempts to discredit Aristotle's authority to weaken John's thesis.

[@finetuning13]

Calling someone a misogynist doesn't prove anything. Tim doesn't have a valid argument without first proving that John is in fact, a misogynist. Only thing John did was cosign Aristotle. If he did hate women does that prove women really aren't inferior to men? Again, Tim doesn't have a valid argument.

[@malteeaser101]

What if you create a 'feeling' around a person as being an idiot or something else? Which makes other people think he is too stupid or irrational to be correct in what they are saying? Like making out someone doesn't know how to spell by correcting grammar and spelling, constantly. Or if you call someone a feminist like, 'You are a feminist!' When everyone in the thread sees a feminist as irrational... Would playing on that make you seem irrational and make it ad hominem? Or if you, not just call them an idiot, but really go for it, constantly like, 'OMG you are so dense' wouldn't doing that all the time, after someone's comments, create a 'feeling' that the person is an idiot or slow? Also, would someone brining up a random thing about themselves, like saying they are studying particle physics, even though it's an argument about sexism or which DVD is better for example... The. Isn't that ad hominem? Because you are literally bringing up a qualification to give this huge impression or feeling that you are smart and therefore everything that you say must be correct. I know this is a stretch but can just creating an atmosphere or feeling around the person to disprove their argument be ad hominem?

[@chainezo]

Yes it is all of those examples.

[@chainezo]

Chainezo Deathhunter The making out of non exact grammar might be another fallacy but i am to lazy too look it up.

[@refineries147]

Controversy Owl lol if you think ad hominem is a defence when people are criticizing and tearing apart their arguments you got another thing coming

[@malteeaser101]

refineries147 Presumably, the person isn't tearing apart their argument if they are using ad hominem.

[@refineries147]

Controversy Owl Yea true that. I like to know though. Do you think useing this terminology is intercultural honest . I mean if a person from the KKK was talking about racism you think people shouldnt know that guy was from the KKK .OR If someone was being payed that should be irrelevant to what they saying it shouldn't be brought up that the person was payed to say these things?

[@SolDeSaBelle]

1:20 People who pluralize the word _"Nazi"_ with an apostrophe before the final _S_ (i.e. "Nazi's") instead of just adding it and nothing else (i.e. "Nazis") *also* believe dark chocolate is better. ... And they may be right. ... On *one* count.

[@Adilah_Lite]

Lol the abusive form of ad-hominem is rather amusing.

[@Thimbledunk]

@traasorg Well, aren't you over-simplifying the issue with a truism? Clearly it could have bearing - otherwise, why would a court allow the fact that someone has raped and murdered several children to be admitted in evidence against his statement that he was innocent of raping and murdering a particular child?

[@MrBenMcLean]

Ouch -- it's "address" not "adress"

[@AMOR-Logion]

+Benjamin McLean Good catch! There's another typo in there... see if you can find it. ;-)

[@danicadeleon8490]

it's spelled "variant" not "varient"

[@garethmanEXE]

Shit, get it together Tim.

[@BC-ge4gy]

Also know as the straw man fallacy.

[@izvarzone]

Kinda different things though, but overlap.

[@roxfoot]

you would say that ,you are trying to get subscibers

[@theenchilada1525]

wow so being a hypocrite doesnt lessen the argument power if one so believes it. great... Tim-"I believe women should be free and have equal rights" Bob- "wait wtf you give no freedom to your girlfriend" pathetic.

[@AMOR-Logion]

+Miguel Lopez (WDWDM) Hypocrisy doesn't reduce the logic of the argument, even if it reduces the efficacy of the intent of the argument.

[@Edgerich]

+Miguel Lopez (WDWDM) I think the idea is to detach the speaker and the logic he presents as two entities. The argument is Tim Believes women should be free and have equal rights. Whether or not he "gives" freedom to his girlfriend does not invalidate that he does not believe women should be free and have equal rights. The iffy word here is "believe" since this word is subjective and can only exist in the mind. Thus, he may very well be a lunatic that punishes women and still believes in equality. He would still be correct as pathetic that sounds.

[@theenchilada1525]

fair enough.

[@LaheyTrevor]

ya but you spelled variant incorrectly, so this video is wrong

[@KnotsEdge]

I only came to this page to make this comment :(

[@izvarzone]

I think ppl sometimes do when they know they're wrong, but they want to end argument ungracefully. People with honor never use these.

[@berserkchip]

Also, not every personal attack is Ad Hominem. That's wrong because you're a butt = Ad Hominem That's wrong because A, B, and C, you butt. = Argument with evidence, albeit rude

[@berserkchip]

I'm not calling anyone retarded. You are wrong though, because I see people all the time claiming someone is using Ad Hominem when in reality they're just insulting them.

[@manuofthedead]

berserkchip I agree with you ^^

[@AMOR-Logion]

+berserkchip It may not be illogical to include something irrelevant to the argument, but I doubt it will help. Logic is merely one piece of rhetoric and being uncivil almost never works.

[@berserkchip]

***** True, but too often I see insults be described as "ad homenim" attacks, thus ignoring any actual argument made. Obviously being civil is optimal, but sometimes... hell, oftentimes discussions get heated and sometimes we make mistakes, especially when an argument is fast-paced, and you don't always have the chance to stop yourself before you say something you regret alongside your actual point.

[@Edgerich]

+berserkchip In Intelligite's defense, he never said that every personal attack is adhominem. It is when you USE personal attacks AS your argument to win your case. You are simply pointing out the obvious. If you were trying to accomplish something here like finding a loophole in Intelligite's ad hominem video. You have failed. *IF* Discussions get "heated" because you allow it to be, there is no excuse. Before things get out of control, someone has to start it first right? . You try and maintain composure that way you can think coherently and rationally. If someone bursts his bubble, REFUSE to talk to this person and refer him to this page. Then you come back to him once he argues reasonably.

[@sandbar3000]

Of all the fallacies, I believe this one takes the cake. I see it so many times and I myself have be guilty of this one. I think it is easy to attack the person instead of making a good argument.

[@ongogablogian2525]

Every internet forum and comment section, and every online video game discussion in a nutshell)

[@ZURATAMA1324]

More feminists and journalists should see this.

[@TheCrushmaster]

Everyone needs to see this video.

[@maggotsinmysoul]

Oh my gosh I love this. I'm showing this to my english teacher :D

[@FogHorn1911]

Also, and argument, is not a personal attack.

[@christinachang2120]

Thanks for posting. Great to teach intelligent and civil discussions

[@FolstrimHori]

Everyone needs to watch this video.

[@drworm77]

I wish this video had more views.

[@justinterry7853]

People in the comments of KZbin videos use Ad Hominem in spades

[@izvarzone]

yeah, someone called me "nostalgic idiot" because I said Eventide H910 effect can't be replicated with stock ableton plugins. Truth is on my side though. Because you can't get exactly same effect. His other fallacies are also "it sucks because it's old" or "you only think it's good because of nostalgia" 1. old stuff can be better 2. I didn't even know what H910 before 6 month ago, I didn't listen to 70-80's music as a kid, and it's better because it sounds better to my ears, ableton effects are too basic and lack complexity or good texture.

[@TheRabbitFear]

anti gg in a nutshell

[@AMOR-Logion]

@Thimbledunk Hopefully if I get enough followers I will do a video on the exceptions. An obvious one being if the discussion is about the character or qualifications of someone. That being said, I think pointing out conflicts of interest/seedy motivation should happen only if the argument is first thoroughly addressed and if there is evidence for the conflict. Often there is the accusation thrown out only because they are making a certain argument.

[@zircondeez]

1:30

[@aTruster]

I've been experiencing this for some time, but couldn't put a term to the experience. I would shrink and die rather than be guilty of this…I hope!

[@Thimbledunk]

@dpm729 No - that's not really true, although, neither is it quite as simplistic as 'true/false'. It depends on the situation. If you can't play the piano, and I say you're rubbish, then granted you can't defend your awful playing by pointing out my awful playing. But de-emphasising the context and motivations of people's standpoints is not always 'fair'. Calling a religious believer 'stupid' is ad hominem - and in response, I can question the psychological motivation of the person who does it.

[@Thimbledunk]

Another way of looking at this is does who someone is ADD credibility to their comments? If an ex-Scientologist says that such and such a bad thing happened, should they be taken more seriously? Or, as Sociologist Bryan Wilson noted, does the fact that whistleblowers always seem to promote themselves in certain ways - separating themselves from guilt, playing victim, hyping up charges against former enemies, make them less credible? These are clearly not simple issues.

[@Thimbledunk]

@Intelligite Of course - how often do religious believers question the morals of an atheist, and atheists question the intelligence of a religious believer? Often! But it might be valid to question the morality of calling someone stupid, or the psychological motivation for calling someone immoral. Over all, I think that if the context justifies exploring the motivations of the individual, then it can be valid. After all, who pays for all those scientific reports that say what foods are good??

[@UnderstandingTheSelf]

Great! thanks. Would love to see more videos on logical fallacies :-)

[@blueeyedoracle9804]

I had some use “Ad Hominem” as an Ad Adominen against me 😅

[@A3STH3TIX]

Do more fallacies like straw man and post hoc ergo procter hoc

[@teddee9654]

this vid actually had me laughing loll

[@AMOR-Logion]

@Gnomefro Ad Hominem is a form of red herring. I believe read the article you were referred to. It seems that he understands ad hominem in a much stricter sense. My understanding is that ad hominem is that any attack on the opponent that does not directly address the argument is the ad hominem form of a red herring. Thus it is irrelevant if the person states the argument is valid or invalid although that is the implication. Do you think I needed to make that clearer?

[@johnprescottonline]

I'm not a Nazi!

[@nevinfunnyman4715]

i heard patrick

[@clairvoyantamnesiac9770]

It could be an advertisement on the side of the bus, that shouts verbal abuse at people thru a speaker..

[@pingukutepro]

fuck yeah

[@عبداللهرويشد-ك5و]

Even if someone outside a particular field of expertise started tampering with something concerning it, can not we call him that? _Argumentum ad hominem, that is._ (e.g. _"You're a preacher; you are not as experienced in the subjects being talked of than scientists," et cetera..._)

[@Wiggymaster]

This is still ad hominem. Just because he is not an expert on something doesn't make him wrong. You can attack his credibility in much more dignified and legitimate ways, such as, "What sources or statistics do you reference for your argument?" When he produces none, or ones that are weak, then you present your own -strong- sources, and either allow his weak ones to fall on their own or call them out specifically. Either way, if you're going to call someone out for not being an expert, you'd pretty much either a) be an expert yourself, or b) have an expert of your own as a reference who supports your position.

[@meeproar]

Wiggymaster It seem more of an appeal to authority to me.

[@dpm729]

Questioning someone's credibility may convince bystanders to side with you but it doesn't engage that person in debate. It sidesteps honest debate, is disrespectful and distracts from the topic of discussion. If a person is not an expert then it should be easy to defeat their arguments, which will hurt their credibility more effectively anyway. If a person has conflicting interests then it show inconsistency in their arguments instead of questioning their character.

[@Gnomefro]

An insult is not an ad hominem. Pointing out that real conflicts of interest undermine the credibility of another person's statements is not an ad hominem.(And both can have their place in interactions with others) When these things become an ad hominem is when you say things like: "You're an idiot, therefore your argument is invalid" or "You work at the chocolate company, therefore your argument is invalid"

[@GHOSTRIDER-mx2et]

Ad hominem. Words hipsters and effeminate men seem to use. Interesting

[@izvarzone]

Hipsters and effeminate men. Words trolls seems to use. Intereting.

[@waedjradi]

People have become so dumbed down and irrational, to the point, they're highly incapable of arguing with rationality. Sheer beatitude.

[@x305seth1]

comma splice

[@dragonitesrage9803]

I love this video I don't need to explain myself I just link it and say please refer to video when people just insult me haha thank you

[@Matt_Mosley1983]

3 trolls watched this :-) Great little vid - will be subbing and looking to see if you have any others :-D

[@kimevans3830]

would be more convincing if it didn't contain spelling and punctuation errors

[@AMOR-Logion]

+Kim Evans Agreed! I need to get my copyeditors on it.

[@kimevans3830]

+Intelligite Many thanks and hope it didn't insult you because the rest of the presentation is very good. Its just a sad fact that if you don't get the simple part (English and punctuation) correct, then people are going to cast a very critical eye over the content and try to attack you over the merest trifles of your logic or presentation..as if putting a presentation like this together was a simple everyday task which I know it is certainly not. Well done!

[@AMOR-Logion]

Oh not at all! Perhaps the great irony is that if someone dismisses these ideas on that basis they will be falling into the very error this video is intended to dispel.

[@izvarzone]

wouldn't. Truth have nothing to do with grammatic.

[@qsqua]

Does the situation of the boy who cried wolf classify as ad hominem?

[@Jewbear1884]

No, because that's a lie that he used to attract attention, he wasn't debating or arguing with someone.

[@izvarzone]

No

[@ThePaperPineapple]

At the beginning of your video you say that an ad hominem attack is a type of "bad argument". Later you say things like "That is not an argument" and "a personal l attack is not an argument". If something is not an argument, then it's not possible for it to be a bad argument. In other words, if the intersection of the set of all ad hominem attacks and the set of all arguments is the empty set, then there does not exist an ad hominem attack which is in the subset of arguments called "bad arguments." It's a little bothersome that you considered something a "bad argument" one moment and then considered that very same thing to not be an argument at all the next moment.

[@juanjuarez490]

The Paper Pineapple Logically speaking..He's right.. Example... "You have horrible skills"="You have no skill"

[@theenchilada1525]

+War Machine incorrect. horrid skill still means having skills.

[@ronaldcicciarelli1566]

+The Paper Pineapple I believe you need to be understanding here-- you need to insert the implied words "a good" in the statement "that is not (a good) argument" and you would be able to focus on the general meaning and application of such misguided logic. Me thinks the empty set lies somewhere else

[@AMOR-Logion]

+The Paper Pineapple When we use the word "bad" we can mean "not actually the thing." For example: wolves make bad babysitters. Likewise, arguments that fail to be logical cease to be arguments even if the intent is to use them as such. Thus when you respond to an argument with an insult so as to win the argument it is ad hominem. Ad Hominem is a type of the rhetorical fallacy "red herring" which is to put forward information or ideas not relevant to the discussion.

[@trhll5635]

The Nazi one left me rolling.

[@jorokolev66]

Perfect video, thank you so much (bow)

[@DVincentW]

I like drak choclate.

[@clairvoyantamnesiac9770]

Dark Chocolate. You ninny.

[@DVincentW]

Do u realize you're doing what the video says?

[@clairvoyantamnesiac9770]

Oh yeah .. hurumph. Well you can eat stuff and things - fine whatever.

[@yang3394]

Excellent video!

[@Munedawg]

This is great. Nice job!

[@MrToonkill]

thanks and lol

[@PatchCornAdams723]

Woah, I love your voice.

[@wyattmann2968]

Wouldn't this mean that pointing out someone's Ad Hominem attack is itself an Ad Hominem argument.

[@yochlel2642]

not really,an awnser can only be considered an ad hominem if the insult used is irellevant to the conversation (example:if someone in a conversation about vegetarianism someone says "you are an idiot,so you're wrong!" he's using an ad hominem fallacy,because being an idiot doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong,idiots can be right sometimes) and the fact someone used a fallacy IS relevant to the conversation,so it can't be considered an ad hominem

[@izvarzone]

"You're stupid because you use ad hominem" - ad hominem "Your insult have nothing to do with topic" - not ad hominem

[@fothinator]

im' a grammer and speling notsee

[@godexists2177]

atheists and evolutionist. they keep calling creationists idiots

[@izvarzone]

I've seen insults fly both ways. So it have nothing to do with religious views, but whether person is jerk or not.

[@diadiaa892]

SO WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT WTF

[@lockedaway2024]

😐