Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem also known as argumentum ad hominem, personal abuse, abusive fallacy, refutation by character 

Description: This involves targeting the person making the argument rather than the argument. The comments about the person are completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Also note the difference between abusive and circumstantial ad hominem (see footnote).

This type of argument is formed as follows:

Person 1 claims Y
Person 2 claims that person 1 is stupid/lazy/ignorant/deceitful/etc.
Therefore Y is not true.

Example 1

Creationist	Atheists suppress the truth and come up with "just so stories" to explain the natural law.
JimC	Atheists suppress the truth? Is this a conspiracy theory?
Creationist	I thought you knew the Bible?
JimC	Well, you said Atheists suppress the truth and I asked if that was a conspiracy theory.
Creationist	If you know your Bible (you obviously don't) or know how to google (too lazy???) you'd already have your answer. Do some work.

Explanation

Perhaps JimC is ignorant and/or lazy but that doesn't explain the Creationist's assertion and so the personal comments are irrelevant to the argument.

Example 2

Person C	The philosophy of Atheism expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind. The philosophy of theism, if we can call it a philosophy, is static and fixed.
Person A	I see theism as a philosophy, but not atheism. I shall sleep on it
Person B	Those of an atheistic perspective--minus any higher moral frame of reference--have no integrity whatsoever when it comes to honest debate on points presented for consideration here!
Person A	?
Person B	Are you really that committed to your personal prejudices that you cannot respond on topic?
Person A	I was unable to respond to your comment because I found the language impenetrable. Hence the “?” But I will have another attempt to decipher it in the morning
Person B	Might I suggest--once again--that you quote me directly, and directly respond to such? I yet await the day you choose to do so (or not)--thanks!
Person A	I can quote you but that seems pointless if I don't understand it. As I said, I will attempt to decipher your message in the morning but hopefully someone else can beat me to it.
Person B	I repeat yet again: is it that much of a problem for you and your perspective to quote that to which you choose to respond, and posit your own responses on topic and without prejudice or "reinterpretation"? If you have honest and on topic questions--why not express such--but again on topic to that which has honestly been posited?

Explanation

Person A responded to Person C with an opinion that atheism is not a philosophy. Person B has joined the debate with a series of personal comments aimed at Person A that do not help to resolve the question of atheism being a philosophy.

Example 3

Person A	Jesus--God incarnate--voluntarily self-limited Himself in order to access our human experience and be part of it. Minus His appeal to God the Father, His understanding of "reality" would be limited to what he learned and researched on His own referencing whatever access was then available to Him
Person B	I tend to favour your hypothesis that Jesus could only have "learned" from experience, and where better to learn Buddhism that from Buddhists?
Person A	Amazing how you choose to twist everything rather than engage in honest on topic discussion! You have an admitted background in advertising, which presumes dishonest manipulation in order to lead one to be manipulated to favor one perspective or another by any means other than presentation of actual facts!

Explanation

Person A's reference to the assumed "background" of Person B and associated negative opinions, do not seem related to the proposition from Person B.

Example 4

Person A	If they are honest differences, then they can be resolved through good will actions. If they are dishonest differences then they can be disregarded as disingenuous.
Person B	The only dishonest aspect is the hypocrisy we see when people's claims to moral values are contradicted by their actions.
Person C	At last I agree with you. Your hypocrisy and claim to moral values are contradicted by your actions. Post that that on Wikipedia!

Explanation

This is an example of a double team ad hominem. Someone who was not involved in the debate has launched a volley of personal comments out of the blue with no relevance to the discussion.

Example 5

Commentary

Creationist	You don't even believe in the reality of God so how is it I should take your comments about God seriously?	This is a fallacious argument. Someone who doesn't believe in God is perfectly able to make comments about God that should be taken seriously.
Pantheist	You say that Christianity is not new and I've answered why and yet you still ask the same question over again. Are you expecting a different answer?	It seems the debate has reached an impasse.
Creationist	You chose to deflect and take us on a bunny trail. Now the lemmings here clearly, like you, don't get it. It was an effective way however for you to avoid addressing points made	Presumably "the lemmings" are contributors to the discussion board who agree with the Pantheist?
Pantheist	I love the way you call me a lemming. Why do you need a religion, a man made construct, to find God?	Possibly implying that following a religion is lemming-like?
Creationist	Maybe you need to read a book. Or two. I didn't call you a lemming. I said JimC's lemmings. I never said who. I'm not rude but can be irritating.	The "you need to read a book or two" comment is ad hominem against The Pantheist. And an erroneous reference to JimC thrown in!
JimC	Actually you didn't say "JimC's lemmings". You said "the lemmings".	JimC points out the fact that the Creationist doesn't seem to remember what he said just a few minutes previously
Creationist	Same difference. And I didn't name them. I'd include you as a lemming too. The big fat one in front.	Ad hominem this time aimed at JimC. It's now very difficult to tell what the original topic was.

Explanation

This shows how ad hominem can close down a debate especially if those who are targeted try to defend themselves - which can lead to ad hominem on both sides.

                                                                                              

Example  6

Commentary

JimC	I like the word infidel and I'm happy to be labelled as an infidel - it's more appropriate than atheist in my opinion.  But you applied the word "infidel" to the meaning of "apostate" whilst referring to the Quranic verses regarding apostasy. You’ve confused Infidel with Apostate.
Evangelical Christian	I didn't call you an infidel or an apostate--my posts are not always about you. Of course, you can call yourself anything you. --That's what I do, but I won't mention what I call you--	A mild ad hominem “I won’t mention what I call you” – EC suggesting they have a “name” for JimC which they don’t want to mention. Also note that the discussion about Infidel vs apostate has been dropped, the debate is now entirely personal.
JimC	I didn't say that you called me anything. I was just using myself as an example to help you understand the difference between infidel and apostate. To repeat: I'm an infidel - not an apostate.  It's interesting that you won't mention what you call me. I'd like to know - I think it would be revealing! (If it's too obscene or cruel to put here you can PM me.)	JimC wonders if the “name” he has been given can’t be mentioned because it is obscene or cruel.
Evangelical Christian	I'm afraid long hours of many days go by and I don't even think about you. I have not called you anything obscene nor any other unpleasant name as I recall.    I should tell you, however, that in my real life job one of my support team turned in work that was shallow in argument, poorly researched, cleverly worded to grossly distort the opponent's position, was obnoxious and he otherwise refused to acknowledge he was pushing a losing argument, and I just... spontaniously ... with no malice aforethought... oh, I'm afraid I called him...JimC.  As I hope you can see in the above paragraph, I am prone to use humor--or make an effort to be humorous. Sadly, some people may conclude the above paragraph reflects hatred and is a venomous insult toward you, devoid of any humor. (Hmm, it would be a reasonable conclusion) Actually--I hope not to embarrass you, deminish your reputation nor subject you to ridicule by your friends, if you have any--but I have found you to make an expression of fairness to me. On your behalf I will stress that it was only once and happened... maybe four, five, six years ago. It was probably made in a weak moment due to your youth. I think at the worst you would shake your head and mumble for about a half second. At best, I could expect you might actually chuckle before drafting your vile, poison pen response to me.	The Evangelical Christian seems to have forgotten that she said “I won’t mention what I call you” and then launches into pure ad hominem:  The story about a member of the “support team” is obviously made up as a means to accuse JimC of having shallow arguments, poor research, distorting opponent’s positions, obnoxious, etc. There is no evidence to support the accusations and they certainly don’t seem connected to the discussion of Infidels and Apostates.  Bizarrely the Evangelical Christian then admits the ad hominem saying that it is a “reasonable conclusion” that “above paragraph reflects hatred and is a venomous insult toward you, devoid of any humor.” The Evangelical Christian then suggests JimC has no friends. Unclear how this is relevant to the discussion, but is a clear example of needling, and attempted bullying. Seems more appropriate to a schoolyard! Finally The Evangelical Christian suggests JimC is capable of a “vile, poison pen response” – which is ironic – and perhaps an attempt to goad JimC to respond with ad hominem in return.  (In fact JimC refuses to be drawn)

Explanation

Again, this shows how ad hominem can close down a debate by deflecting and misdirecting away from the topic. It's possible in this case the Evangelical Christian was trying to deflect attentiona way from her mistake regarding the meaning of the words Infidel and apostate.

Example 7

Pantheist	I'm not convinced by the evidence for a single god, IMHO older scripture alludes more to multiple gods, and has been carefully edited in the 6th century to strengthen the claim of a single God. As I said, it would take very compelling physical evidence to change my current views, but it could happen. I feel more drawn to eastern religions and paganism however than I do towards Abrahamic religions.
Evangelical Christian	Can you give us the name of the Muslim that edited the Bible in the 6th century? I promise to be nice to him. Or, did you not really mean it as truth?  I'm sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned a Muslim editing the Bible. It was probably just another athiest [sic] thinking he was smarter than God.  Oh, and if you find it convenient, could you tell which part was edited? I'd really like to know that, too.
Pantheist	<Refuses to take the bait>

Explanation

The topic here was "Evidence for God" and the Pantheist makes his position clear regarding the Bible as evidence.  The Evangelical Christian's sarcasm is obvious, but the reference to Muslims is mysterious. Confusing "eastern religions" with Islam maybe? It's obviously meant to be needling the Pantheist.  In any case, nothing the Evangelical Christian has said seems connected to the topic.

Example 8

JimC	In Matthew 27:52-53 we are told that when Jesus died on the cross... "The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people." If this is true it would be the greatest miracle ever. It's one thing to have one man, Jesus, resurrected and ascend to heaven, but to have many people resurrected and then going into Jerusalem and appearing to many people there is even more incredible. I'm assuming no one here believes this really happened, but if anyone here does believe it is a true story, could you let me know as I have some questions which perhaps you can answer.
Creationist	Sounds more like the JimC fishing tactic (or trolling) that you used endlessly. Try google. I hear it's a good search engine. Better, post your questions ahead of time.
JimC	I didn't see the point asking the questions if no one here believed the story was true.

Explanation

The Creationist's response includes an accusation of "fishing" (or trolling) which might have substance if JimC had provided a list of questions designed to provoke an emotional response - but JimC specifically avoided doing that. Strangely, the Creationist suggests "posting questions ahead of time" would be a more acceptable approach!  The Creationist's response does nothing to answer the question and specifically dodges the question by suggesting JimC should "try google" (as in example 1) .

Example 9

Person A

Here's a chart showing the numbers and types of topics posted on the db since the beginning of the year, ranked by category.

Person B

You must lead a very boring life.

Person C

Maybe data is something Person A does for a living

Person B

or maybe he has a he has a psychological disorder. There's a pill for that. And an app

Explanation

Person A has presented a chart. Person B appears to have no opinion about the chart, but does have opinions about Person A, namely that he leads a boring life and may have a psychological disorder. Whilst all of those opinions may be true, they have no relevance to the information contained in the chart.

Tip: If you find yourself the target of personal comments, take it as a compliment to the quality of your argument. It is usually a sign of desperation on the part of your opponent!

Exception: When personal comments are relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy. In our first example, if the issue being debated was the elimination of taxes only on Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, then pointing out her eating habits would be strong evidence of a conflict of interest.

More on ad hominem - Abusive vs Circumstantial
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/10-ad-hominem-abusive
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of targeting the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. 

Personal comments and character assassination can also be termed an "ad personnel argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the same character or circumstances.

In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My point might be bad, but yours is worse."

If the subject includes an assessment of behaviour, the point can be put "So I do x [some specific action], but you do too."

Since the circumstantial variety of the ad hominem can be regarded as a special case of the abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the circumstantial is often ignored.