58:. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use
493:
88:
2847:
617:
536:
argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive use of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true. This usage is
395:
A simple example is: a father may tell his daughter not to start smoking because she will damage her health, and she may point out that he is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that smoking might cause various diseases. Her father's inconsistency is not a proper reason to reject his claim.
365:
or even changed their mind, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. A common example, given by
Tindale, is when a doctor advises a patient to lose weight, but the patient argues that there is no need for him to go on a diet because the doctor is also overweight.
166:
Over time, the term acquired a different meaning; by the beginning of the 20th century, it was linked to a logical fallacy, in which a debater, instead of disproving an argument, attacked their opponent. This approach was also popularized in philosophical textbooks of the mid-20th century, and it was
70:
are more traditional, referring to arguments tailored to fit a particular audience, and may be encountered in specialized philosophical usage. These typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those
556:
attack is an attack on the character of the target who tends to feel the necessity to defend himself or herself from the accusation of being hypocritical. Walton has noted that it is so powerful of an argument that it is employed in many political debates. Since it is associated with negativity and
335:
Here is an example given by philosophy professor George
Wrisley to illustrate the above: A businessman and a politician are giving a lecture at a university about how good his company is and how nicely the system works. A student asks him "Is it true that you and your company are selling weapons to
523:
fallacy or not are whether the accusation against the person stands true or not, and whether the accusation is relevant to the argument. An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross-examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for
391:
could be fallacious or not. It could be fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument invalid; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). But it also may be a sound argument, if the premises are correct
175:
in the second half of the 20th century. In a detailed work, he suggested that the inclusion of a statement against a person in an argument does not necessarily make it a fallacious argument since that particular phrase is not a premise that leads to a conclusion. While Hablin's criticism was not
62:
attacks, some of which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent used instead of political argumentation. (But modern democracy requires that voters make character judgements of representatives, so opponents may reasonably criticize their character and motives.)
600:
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
466:
Guilt by association is frequently found in social and political debates. It also appears after major events (such as scandals and terrorism) linked to a specific group. An example, given also by Leigh Kolb, is the peak of attacks against
Muslims in the US after the
336:
third world rulers who use those arms against their own people?" and the businessman replies "Is it true that your university gets funding by the same company that you are claiming is selling guns to those countries? You are not a white dove either". The student's
340:
accusation is not fallacious, as it is relevant to the narrative the businessman is trying to project. On the other hand, the businessman's attack on the student (that is, the student being inconsistent) is irrelevant to the opening narrative. So the businessman's
279:
argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someone's argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument.
588:
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.
132:. In these arguments, the concepts and assumptions of the opponents are used as part of a dialectical strategy against them to demonstrate the unsoundness of their own arguments and assumptions. In this way, the arguments are to the person (
576:: "my opponent was not decent in his arguments in the past, so he is not now either". These kinds of attacks are based on the inability of the audience to have a clear view of the amount of false statements by both parts of the debate.
516:) is associated with an attack to the character of the person carrying an argument. This kind of argument, besides usually being fallacious, is also counterproductive, as a proper dialogue is hard to achieve after such an attack.
572:, according to which the previous history of someone means that they do not fit for the office. It goes like this: "My opponent was (allegedly) wrong in the past, therefore he is wrong now". The second one is a behavioral
403:
argument can be non-fallacious. This could be the case when someone (A) attacks the personality of another person (B), making an argument (a) while the personality of B is relevant to argument a, i.e. B talks as an
408:. To illustrate this reasoning, Walton gives the example of a witness at a trial: if he had been caught lying and cheating in his own life, should the jury take his word for granted? No, according to Walton.
360:
fallacy appears when a response to an argument is made on the history of the arguer. This argument is also invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true, then source A may be a
151:
argument, meaning examining an argument on the basis of whether it stands true to the principles of the person carrying the argument. In the mid-19th century, the modern understanding of the term
383:
points out that someone is in circumstances (for instance, their job, wealth, property, or relations) such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the
112:, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny. His description was somewhat different from the modern understanding, referring to a class of
524:
lying. If the attorney's conclusion is that the witness is lying, that would be wrong. But if his argument would be that the witness should not be trusted, that would not be a fallacy.
1964:
1969:
116:
that applies an ambiguously worded question about people to a specific person. The proper refutation, he wrote, is not to debate the attributes of the person (
426:
fallacy when the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
422:
Guilt by association, that is accusing an arguer because of his alleged connection with a discredited person or group, can sometimes also be a type of
444:
1486:
136:), but without attacking the properties of the individuals making the arguments. This kind of argument is also known as "argument from commitment".
1271:
1776:
1731:
1710:
1674:
1603:
1573:
1543:
1519:
1326:
1297:
1251:
1232:
501:
2883:
2347:
2004:
1846:
463:
terrorist group in the 1960s. Despite Obama denouncing every act of terrorism, he was still associated by his opponents with terrorism.
537:
generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th century usages. This type of argument is also known as the
2158:
1498:
1347:
3231:
31:
3155:
3236:
3226:
2766:
1974:
1416:
Orkibi, Eithan (2018-02-27). "Precedential Ad
Hominem in Polemical Exchange: Examples from the Israeli Political Debate".
690:
163:
arguments were "addressed to the peculiar circumstances, character, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual".
3030:
2802:
2778:
2367:
1482:
632:
593:
552:
fallacies are considered to be uncivil and do not help creating a constructive atmosphere for dialogue to flourish. An
3221:
2379:
2123:
1337:
3216:
2389:
204:
stands for "argument against the person". "Ad" corresponds to "against" but it could also mean "to" or "towards".
3100:
3045:
2797:
2354:
2250:
2876:
2792:
2632:
2100:
1936:
1892:
1751:
254:
2960:
2812:
2627:
2143:
1839:
675:
658:
192:
signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute their argument.
172:
108:
1759:
Wrisley, George (2019). "Ad
Hominem: Circumstantial". In Robert Arp; Steven Barbone; Michael Bruce (eds.).
3145:
3115:
3065:
2990:
2903:
2734:
2724:
2674:
2648:
2424:
2298:
2265:
2166:
2148:
2048:
1897:
1879:
745:
653:
492:
3140:
3105:
3055:
3035:
2892:
2772:
2760:
2740:
2729:
2644:
2457:
2433:
2255:
2211:
2063:
1989:
1902:
560:
Author Eithan Orkibi, having studied
Israeli politics prior to elections, described two other forms of
188:
argument even further. Nowadays, except within specialized philosophical usages, the usage of the term
1556:; Grootendorst, Rob (2015). "The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century".
3070:
2980:
2787:
2691:
2655:
2570:
2526:
2362:
2293:
2083:
1912:
1887:
1553:
1529:
725:
715:
663:
468:
3170:
3000:
2975:
2925:
2869:
2665:
2564:
2511:
2487:
2410:
2313:
2245:
2171:
1984:
1979:
1956:
1931:
638:
460:
417:
349:
1262:
3130:
3125:
3110:
2935:
2850:
2783:
2597:
2482:
2467:
2414:
2374:
2323:
2260:
2219:
2196:
2176:
2079:
1923:
1907:
1832:
1782:
1648:
1441:
1303:
1280:
Kolb, Leigh (2019). "Guilt by
Association". In Robert Arp; Steven Barbone; Michael Bruce (eds.).
720:
605:
reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.
3241:
3180:
3095:
3025:
2920:
2669:
2506:
2496:
2472:
2449:
2405:
2331:
2283:
2241:
2201:
2043:
2038:
1860:
1772:
1727:
1706:
1696:
1684:
1670:
1660:
1640:
1613:
1599:
1591:
1579:
1569:
1539:
1515:
1494:
1470:
1433:
1404:
1343:
1322:
1316:
1293:
1247:
1228:
710:
685:
643:
622:
565:
399:
Douglas N. Walton, philosopher and pundit on informal fallacies, argues that a circumstantial
236:
181:
1742:
94:(384–322 BC) is credited with raising the distinction between personal and logical arguments.
3195:
3150:
3010:
2945:
2930:
2819:
2660:
2559:
2501:
2439:
2234:
2113:
2108:
2093:
2058:
2018:
1946:
1941:
1764:
1632:
1561:
1462:
1425:
1394:
1285:
648:
405:
246:
129:
215:
have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female but the term
87:
3085:
2540:
2516:
2336:
2308:
2288:
2136:
2104:
2088:
1266:
705:
250:
156:
140:
2576:
2053:
1617:
1387:"L'interrogation sur la compétence politique en 2007 : une question de genre ?"
700:
1618:"Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument"
1358:
3075:
2985:
2970:
2915:
2477:
2462:
2384:
2303:
2229:
1869:
1466:
750:
72:
45:
3210:
3020:
3015:
2602:
2492:
2224:
2187:
2131:
1999:
1994:
1786:
1445:
1307:
760:
1652:
3190:
3160:
3120:
3005:
2614:
2033:
765:
602:
487:
483:
452:
1819:
1810:
1721:
1700:
1664:
1565:
1533:
1509:
120:) but to address the original ambiguity. Many examples of ancient non-fallacious
3185:
3135:
3050:
3040:
2995:
2950:
2807:
2584:
2521:
1815:
1386:
735:
695:
669:
448:
168:
17:
1289:
436:
Individual S is also associated with Group G, who has an unfavorable reputation
3060:
2965:
2717:
2711:
2638:
1805:
1768:
1636:
1429:
740:
612:
456:
144:
125:
76:
1644:
1583:
1474:
1437:
1408:
2824:
2608:
2592:
2275:
755:
730:
680:
375:
362:
291:
177:
113:
103:
91:
2754:
155:
started to take shape, with the broad definition given by
English logician
1824:
3090:
2955:
2702:
1399:
564:
attacks that are common during election periods. They both depend on the
102:
arguments have been known in the West since at least the ancient Greeks.
2861:
1761:
Bad
Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy
1282:
Bad
Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy
3080:
2940:
1856:
55:
1801:
30:"Personal attack" redirects here. For the Knowledge (XXG) policy, see
3175:
1318:
Critical Thinking, fifth edition: An Introduction to the Basic Skills
79:
revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century.
557:
dirty tricks, it has gained a bad fame, of being always fallacious.
3165:
519:
Key issues in examining an argument to determine whether it is an
327:
A defends themself by attacking B, saying they also hold the same
86:
71:
beliefs and arguments. Ad hominem arguments were first studied in
1376:". In Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Dalitz, Renée José; Smit, Pier (eds.).
384:
2865:
1828:
568:
shared by both proponents and the audience. The first is the
541:
argument (Latin for "from what has been conceded already").
1744:
Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism
1453:
Sommers, Christina (March 1991). "Argumentum ad feminam".
1070:
1068:
1055:
1053:
147:
also examined the argument from commitment, a form of the
1699:(27 April 2015). "informal logic". In Audi Robert (ed.).
1372:
Nuchelmans, Gäbriel (1993). "On the Fourfold Root of the
852:
439:
Therefore, individual S and his views are questionable.
263:
fallacies can be separated into various types, such as
387:
of a source. As with other types of the argument, the
2701:
2689:
2548:
2539:
2448:
2423:
2398:
2322:
2274:
2210:
2185:
2157:
2122:
2072:
2026:
2017:
1955:
1921:
1877:
1868:
320:B attacks the character of A by saying they hold a
275:. All of them are similar to the general scheme of
443:Academic Leigh Kolb gives as an example that the
1315:Lavery, Jonathan; Hughes, Willam (27 May 2008).
54:, refers to several types of arguments that are
1134:
1965:Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
2877:
1970:Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
1840:
27:Attacking the person rather than the argument
8:
1726:. Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated.
1493:. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60.
968:
299:(literally: "You also") is a response to an
124:arguments are preserved in the works of the
1560:. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
1508:Tindale, Christopher W. (22 January 2007).
948:
37:
2884:
2870:
2862:
2698:
2545:
2420:
2023:
1874:
1847:
1833:
1825:
932:
916:
812:
392:and the bias is relevant to the argument.
1398:
429:This form of the argument is as follows:
1535:Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory
1336:Lewis, Charlton; Short, Charles (1879).
491:
48:for 'to the person'), short for
1272:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
1122:
1086:
1020:
1004:
992:
980:
960:
904:
900:
888:
876:
800:
788:
777:
1702:The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
1666:Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation
1206:
1194:
1182:
1170:
1158:
1146:
1110:
1098:
1059:
1044:
1032:
1016:
964:
928:
864:
840:
824:
784:
303:argument that itself goes ad hominem.
1284:. Wiley Blackwell. pp. 351–353.
7:
1689:Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach
1074:
936:
828:
271:, guilt by association, and abusive
1763:. Wiley Blackwell. pp. 77–82.
853:van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2015
184:examined the fallaciousness of the
32:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
1487:"Explanation and Practical Reason"
1467:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1991.tb00016.x
1225:Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide
1223:Bowell, Tracy; Kemp, Gary (2010).
502:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
352:approaches somewhat different the
25:
1378:Empirical Logic and Public Debate
356:fallacy. According to Tindale, a
2846:
2845:
1511:Fallacies and Argument Appraisal
615:
245:reasoning is categorized among
1598:. University of Alabama Press.
1385:Olivesi, Aurélie (2010-04-05).
459:, who had been a leader in the
223:) was gender-neutral in Latin.
2343:Correlation implies causation
1705:. Cambridge University Press.
1669:. Cambridge University Press.
1538:. Amsterdam University Press.
1514:. Cambridge University Press.
1:
1691:. Cambridge University Press.
1227:. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
691:Fundamental attribution error
3156:Rally 'round the flag effect
3031:Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
1566:10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_32
1455:Journal of Social Philosophy
633:And you are lynching Negroes
500:lies near the bottom end of
1741:Wong, Andrew David (2017).
433:Individual S makes claim C.
3258:
2767:I'm entitled to my opinion
1359:"Definition of Ad Hominem"
1290:10.1002/9781119165811.ch83
481:
415:
373:
289:
234:
29:
2899:
2841:
2750:
2623:
1769:10.1002/9781119165811.ch9
1430:10.1007/s10503-018-9453-2
1393:(in French) (72): 59–74.
445:2008 US vice-presidential
389:circumstantial ad hominem
381:Circumstantial ad hominem
2793:Motte-and-bailey fallacy
1893:Affirming the consequent
1752:University of California
1723:A Rulebook for Arguments
1720:Weston, Anthony (2018).
1357:Merriam-Webster (2019).
1242:Copi, Irving M. (1986).
1101:, 1. The core fallacies.
969:Lavery & Hughes 2008
528:Argument from commitment
345:response is fallacious.
255:fallacies of irrelevance
159:. According to Whately,
143:and British philosopher
3232:Latin words and phrases
2961:Cartographic propaganda
2813:Two wrongs make a right
2144:Denying the correlative
1818:at Fallacy Check, with
1637:10.1023/A:1011120100277
1491:Philosophical Arguments
676:Fair game (Scientology)
659:Character assassination
584:Walton has argued that
455:for having worked with
173:Charles Leonard Hamblin
109:Sophistical Refutations
66:Other uses of the term
3146:Propaganda of the deed
3116:New generation warfare
3066:Historical negationism
2904:Accusation in a mirror
2798:Psychologist's fallacy
2735:Argument to moderation
2725:Argument from anecdote
2675:Chronological snobbery
2299:Quoting out of context
2266:Overwhelming exception
2149:Suppressed correlative
2049:Quoting out of context
1924:quantificational logic
1898:Denying the antecedent
933:Bowell & Kemp 2010
917:Lewis & Short 1879
746:Shooting the messenger
654:The Art of Being Right
580:Criticism as a fallacy
505:
249:, more precisely as a
95:
38:
3237:Propaganda techniques
3227:Latin logical phrases
3141:Psychological warfare
3106:Monumental propaganda
3056:Glittering generality
3036:Firehose of falsehood
2893:Propaganda techniques
2761:The Four Great Errors
2741:Argumentum ad populum
2730:Argument from silence
2434:Argumentum ad baculum
2212:Faulty generalization
1903:Argument from fallacy
1811:Argumentum Ad Hominem
1558:Argumentation Library
1554:van Eemeren, Frans H.
1374:Argumentum ad Hominem
1261:Hansen, Hans (2019).
495:
348:Canadian philosopher
202:argumentum ad hominem
98:The various types of
90:
51:argumentum ad hominem
2981:Demonizing the enemy
2779:Invincible ignorance
2585:Reductio ad Stalinum
2571:Reductio ad Hitlerum
2527:Wisdom of repugnance
2294:Moving the goalposts
2159:Illicit transference
2084:Begging the question
2005:Undistributed middle
1913:Mathematical fallacy
1888:Affirming a disjunct
1596:Ad Hominem Arguments
1400:10.4000/quaderni.486
1135:Merriam-Webster 2019
967:, pp. 431–435;
935:, pp. 201–213;
726:Presumption of guilt
716:Negative campaigning
664:Dogpiling (Internet)
570:precedent ad hominem
512:argument (or direct
469:September 11 attacks
412:Guilt by association
297:Ad hominem tu quoque
3171:Shooting and crying
3001:Emotive conjugation
2976:Cult of personality
2926:Atrocity propaganda
2512:Parade of horribles
2488:In-group favoritism
2314:Syntactic ambiguity
1957:Syllogistic fallacy
1880:propositional logic
1321:. Broadview Press.
1185:, pp. 497–498.
1077:, pp. 351–352.
939:, pp. 112–113.
855:, pp. 615–626.
843:, pp. 208–210.
827:, p. 207–209;
639:Appeal to authority
461:Weather Underground
418:Association fallacy
350:Christopher Tindale
253:, a subcategory of
3222:Informal fallacies
3131:Oversimplification
3111:Moralistic fallacy
2598:Poisoning the well
2415:Proof by assertion
2390:Texas sharpshooter
2324:Questionable cause
2261:Slothful induction
2220:Anecdotal evidence
2080:Circular reasoning
1975:Exclusive premises
1937:Illicit conversion
1697:Walton, Douglas N.
1685:Walton, Douglas N.
1661:Walton, Douglas N.
1614:Walton, Douglas N.
1592:Walton, Douglas N.
1530:van Eemeren, F. H.
1339:A Latin Dictionary
1019:, pp. 18–21;
919:, p. 859-860.
721:Poisoning the well
506:
247:informal fallacies
118:solutio ad hominem
96:
3217:Genetic fallacies
3204:
3203:
3096:Managing the news
2921:Appeal to emotion
2859:
2858:
2837:
2836:
2833:
2832:
2773:Ignoratio elenchi
2685:
2684:
2535:
2534:
2497:Not invented here
2202:Converse accident
2124:Correlative-based
2101:Compound question
2044:False attribution
2039:False equivalence
2013:
2012:
1778:978-1-119-16580-4
1733:978-1-62466-655-1
1712:978-1-107-01505-0
1676:978-0-521-82319-7
1605:978-0-8173-0922-0
1575:978-3-319-20954-8
1545:978-90-5356-523-0
1521:978-1-139-46184-9
1342:. Nigel Gourlay.
1328:978-1-77048-111-4
1299:978-1-119-16580-4
1253:978-0-02-324940-2
1234:978-0-415-47183-1
1209:, pp. 34–60.
1125:, pp. 86–87.
1089:, pp. 92–93.
1062:, pp. 18–21.
1023:, pp. 77–78.
1007:, pp. 94–96.
995:, pp. 89–91.
891:, pp. 71–72.
711:List of fallacies
686:False equivalence
644:Appeal to emotion
623:Philosophy portal
566:collective memory
267:, circumstantial
237:List of fallacies
200:The Latin phrase
182:Douglas N. Walton
176:widely accepted,
16:(Redirected from
3249:
3196:White propaganda
3151:Public relations
3126:Overcomplication
3011:False accusation
2946:Black propaganda
2936:Beautiful people
2931:Bandwagon effect
2886:
2879:
2872:
2863:
2849:
2848:
2820:Special pleading
2699:
2560:Appeal to motive
2546:
2522:Stirring symbols
2502:Island mentality
2440:Wishful thinking
2421:
2137:Perfect solution
2114:No true Scotsman
2109:Complex question
2094:Leading question
2073:Question-begging
2059:No true Scotsman
2024:
1947:Quantifier shift
1942:Proof by example
1875:
1849:
1842:
1835:
1826:
1790:
1755:
1749:
1737:
1716:
1692:
1680:
1656:
1622:
1609:
1587:
1549:
1525:
1504:
1478:
1449:
1412:
1402:
1381:
1368:
1366:
1365:
1353:
1332:
1311:
1276:
1267:Zalta, Edward N.
1257:
1238:
1210:
1204:
1198:
1192:
1186:
1180:
1174:
1168:
1162:
1156:
1150:
1144:
1138:
1132:
1126:
1120:
1114:
1108:
1102:
1096:
1090:
1084:
1078:
1072:
1063:
1057:
1048:
1042:
1036:
1030:
1024:
1014:
1008:
1002:
996:
990:
984:
978:
972:
958:
952:
949:van Eemeren 2001
946:
940:
926:
920:
914:
908:
898:
892:
886:
880:
874:
868:
862:
856:
850:
844:
838:
832:
822:
816:
810:
804:
798:
792:
782:
649:Appeal to motive
625:
620:
619:
618:
596:has argued that
592:The philosopher
545:Usage in debates
406:authority figure
313:A makes a claim
130:Sextus Empiricus
43:
21:
18:Personal Attacks
3257:
3256:
3252:
3251:
3250:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3200:
3086:Loaded language
2895:
2890:
2860:
2855:
2829:
2803:Rationalization
2746:
2693:
2681:
2619:
2541:Genetic fallacy
2531:
2444:
2419:
2394:
2318:
2309:Sorites paradox
2289:False precision
2270:
2251:Double counting
2206:
2181:
2153:
2118:
2105:Loaded question
2089:Loaded language
2068:
2009:
1951:
1917:
1864:
1853:
1798:
1793:
1779:
1758:
1747:
1740:
1734:
1719:
1713:
1695:
1683:
1677:
1659:
1620:
1612:
1606:
1590:
1576:
1552:
1546:
1528:
1522:
1507:
1501:
1483:Taylor, Charles
1481:
1452:
1415:
1384:
1371:
1363:
1361:
1356:
1350:
1335:
1329:
1314:
1300:
1279:
1260:
1254:
1241:
1235:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1205:
1201:
1193:
1189:
1181:
1177:
1169:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1145:
1141:
1133:
1129:
1121:
1117:
1109:
1105:
1097:
1093:
1085:
1081:
1073:
1066:
1058:
1051:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1027:
1015:
1011:
1003:
999:
991:
987:
979:
975:
959:
955:
947:
943:
931:, p. 190;
927:
923:
915:
911:
899:
895:
887:
883:
875:
871:
863:
859:
851:
847:
839:
835:
823:
819:
813:Nuchelmans 1993
811:
807:
799:
795:
787:, p. 208;
783:
779:
775:
770:
706:Hostile witness
621:
616:
614:
611:
582:
547:
530:
490:
480:
420:
414:
378:
372:
324:, which is bad.
294:
288:
251:genetic fallacy
239:
233:
219:(accusative of
198:
157:Richard Whately
141:Galileo Galilei
85:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3255:
3253:
3245:
3244:
3239:
3234:
3229:
3224:
3219:
3209:
3208:
3202:
3201:
3199:
3198:
3193:
3188:
3183:
3178:
3173:
3168:
3163:
3158:
3153:
3148:
3143:
3138:
3133:
3128:
3123:
3118:
3113:
3108:
3103:
3098:
3093:
3088:
3083:
3078:
3076:Indoctrination
3073:
3068:
3063:
3058:
3053:
3048:
3043:
3038:
3033:
3028:
3023:
3018:
3013:
3008:
3003:
2998:
2993:
2988:
2986:Disinformation
2983:
2978:
2973:
2971:Cherry picking
2968:
2963:
2958:
2953:
2948:
2943:
2938:
2933:
2928:
2923:
2918:
2916:Appeal to fear
2913:
2906:
2900:
2897:
2896:
2891:
2889:
2888:
2881:
2874:
2866:
2857:
2856:
2854:
2853:
2842:
2839:
2838:
2835:
2834:
2831:
2830:
2828:
2827:
2822:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2805:
2800:
2795:
2790:
2781:
2776:
2769:
2764:
2757:
2751:
2748:
2747:
2745:
2744:
2737:
2732:
2727:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2707:
2705:
2696:
2687:
2686:
2683:
2682:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2663:
2658:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2642:
2635:
2633:Accomplishment
2624:
2621:
2620:
2618:
2617:
2612:
2605:
2600:
2595:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2562:
2556:
2554:
2543:
2537:
2536:
2533:
2532:
2530:
2529:
2524:
2519:
2514:
2509:
2504:
2499:
2490:
2485:
2480:
2475:
2470:
2465:
2460:
2454:
2452:
2446:
2445:
2443:
2442:
2437:
2429:
2427:
2418:
2417:
2408:
2402:
2400:
2396:
2395:
2393:
2392:
2387:
2385:Slippery slope
2382:
2377:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2351:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2328:
2326:
2320:
2319:
2317:
2316:
2311:
2306:
2304:Slippery slope
2301:
2296:
2291:
2286:
2280:
2278:
2272:
2271:
2269:
2268:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2248:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2232:
2230:Cherry picking
2222:
2216:
2214:
2208:
2207:
2205:
2204:
2199:
2193:
2191:
2183:
2182:
2180:
2179:
2174:
2169:
2163:
2161:
2155:
2154:
2152:
2151:
2146:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2128:
2126:
2120:
2119:
2117:
2116:
2111:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2086:
2076:
2074:
2070:
2069:
2067:
2066:
2061:
2056:
2051:
2046:
2041:
2036:
2030:
2028:
2021:
2015:
2014:
2011:
2010:
2008:
2007:
2002:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1977:
1972:
1967:
1961:
1959:
1953:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1928:
1926:
1919:
1918:
1916:
1915:
1910:
1905:
1900:
1895:
1890:
1884:
1882:
1872:
1866:
1865:
1854:
1852:
1851:
1844:
1837:
1829:
1823:
1822:
1813:
1808:
1797:
1796:External links
1794:
1792:
1791:
1777:
1756:
1738:
1732:
1717:
1711:
1693:
1681:
1675:
1657:
1631:(2): 207–221.
1610:
1604:
1588:
1574:
1550:
1544:
1526:
1520:
1505:
1499:
1479:
1450:
1424:(4): 485–499.
1413:
1382:
1369:
1354:
1348:
1333:
1327:
1312:
1298:
1277:
1258:
1252:
1244:Informal Logic
1239:
1233:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1211:
1199:
1197:, p. 170.
1187:
1175:
1173:, p. 122.
1163:
1151:
1139:
1127:
1115:
1113:, p. 123.
1103:
1091:
1079:
1064:
1049:
1047:, p. 213.
1037:
1035:, p. 211.
1025:
1009:
997:
985:
973:
971:, p. 132.
963:, p. 88;
953:
951:, p. 142.
941:
921:
909:
893:
881:
869:
867:, p. 210.
857:
845:
833:
817:
805:
793:
776:
774:
771:
769:
768:
763:
758:
753:
751:Smear campaign
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
718:
713:
708:
703:
698:
693:
688:
683:
678:
673:
666:
661:
656:
651:
646:
641:
636:
628:
627:
626:
610:
607:
594:Charles Taylor
581:
578:
546:
543:
529:
526:
479:
473:
441:
440:
437:
434:
416:Main article:
413:
410:
374:Main article:
371:
370:Circumstantial
368:
333:
332:
325:
318:
290:Main article:
287:
282:
232:
225:
197:
194:
167:challenged by
106:, in his work
84:
81:
73:ancient Greece
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3254:
3243:
3240:
3238:
3235:
3233:
3230:
3228:
3225:
3223:
3220:
3218:
3215:
3214:
3212:
3197:
3194:
3192:
3189:
3187:
3184:
3182:
3179:
3177:
3174:
3172:
3169:
3167:
3164:
3162:
3159:
3157:
3154:
3152:
3149:
3147:
3144:
3142:
3139:
3137:
3134:
3132:
3129:
3127:
3124:
3122:
3119:
3117:
3114:
3112:
3109:
3107:
3104:
3102:
3099:
3097:
3094:
3092:
3089:
3087:
3084:
3082:
3079:
3077:
3074:
3072:
3069:
3067:
3064:
3062:
3059:
3057:
3054:
3052:
3049:
3047:
3044:
3042:
3039:
3037:
3034:
3032:
3029:
3027:
3024:
3022:
3021:False dilemma
3019:
3017:
3016:False balance
3014:
3012:
3009:
3007:
3004:
3002:
2999:
2997:
2994:
2992:
2989:
2987:
2984:
2982:
2979:
2977:
2974:
2972:
2969:
2967:
2964:
2962:
2959:
2957:
2954:
2952:
2949:
2947:
2944:
2942:
2939:
2937:
2934:
2932:
2929:
2927:
2924:
2922:
2919:
2917:
2914:
2912:
2911:
2907:
2905:
2902:
2901:
2898:
2894:
2887:
2882:
2880:
2875:
2873:
2868:
2867:
2864:
2852:
2844:
2843:
2840:
2826:
2823:
2821:
2818:
2814:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2806:
2804:
2801:
2799:
2796:
2794:
2791:
2789:
2785:
2782:
2780:
2777:
2775:
2774:
2770:
2768:
2765:
2763:
2762:
2758:
2756:
2753:
2752:
2749:
2743:
2742:
2738:
2736:
2733:
2731:
2728:
2726:
2723:
2719:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2709:
2708:
2706:
2704:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2688:
2676:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2667:
2664:
2662:
2659:
2657:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2643:
2641:
2640:
2636:
2634:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2626:
2625:
2622:
2616:
2613:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2604:
2601:
2599:
2596:
2594:
2591:
2587:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2563:
2561:
2558:
2557:
2555:
2553:
2552:
2547:
2544:
2542:
2538:
2528:
2525:
2523:
2520:
2518:
2515:
2513:
2510:
2508:
2505:
2503:
2500:
2498:
2494:
2493:Invented here
2491:
2489:
2486:
2484:
2481:
2479:
2476:
2474:
2471:
2469:
2466:
2464:
2461:
2459:
2456:
2455:
2453:
2451:
2447:
2441:
2438:
2436:
2435:
2431:
2430:
2428:
2426:
2422:
2416:
2412:
2409:
2407:
2404:
2403:
2401:
2397:
2391:
2388:
2386:
2383:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2373:
2369:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2361:
2357:
2356:
2352:
2350:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2342:
2338:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2330:
2329:
2327:
2325:
2321:
2315:
2312:
2310:
2307:
2305:
2302:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2281:
2279:
2277:
2273:
2267:
2264:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2256:False analogy
2254:
2252:
2249:
2247:
2243:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:Sampling bias
2223:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2215:
2213:
2209:
2203:
2200:
2198:
2195:
2194:
2192:
2190:
2189:
2188:Secundum quid
2184:
2178:
2175:
2173:
2170:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2162:
2160:
2156:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:False dilemma
2130:
2129:
2127:
2125:
2121:
2115:
2112:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2099:
2095:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2081:
2078:
2077:
2075:
2071:
2065:
2062:
2060:
2057:
2055:
2052:
2050:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2031:
2029:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2016:
2006:
2003:
2001:
2000:Illicit minor
1998:
1996:
1995:Illicit major
1993:
1991:
1988:
1986:
1983:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1973:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1962:
1960:
1958:
1954:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1940:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1929:
1927:
1925:
1920:
1914:
1911:
1909:
1906:
1904:
1901:
1899:
1896:
1894:
1891:
1889:
1886:
1885:
1883:
1881:
1876:
1873:
1871:
1867:
1862:
1858:
1850:
1845:
1843:
1838:
1836:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1821:
1817:
1814:
1812:
1809:
1807:
1803:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1757:
1753:
1746:
1745:
1739:
1735:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1718:
1714:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1625:Argumentation
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1506:
1502:
1500:9780674664760
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:Argumentation
1414:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1360:
1355:
1351:
1349:9781999855789
1345:
1341:
1340:
1334:
1330:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1255:
1249:
1246:. Macmillan.
1245:
1240:
1236:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1164:
1161:, p. 82.
1160:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1001:
998:
994:
989:
986:
983:, p. 89.
982:
977:
974:
970:
966:
962:
957:
954:
950:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
922:
918:
913:
910:
906:
902:
897:
894:
890:
885:
882:
879:, p. 91.
878:
873:
870:
866:
861:
858:
854:
849:
846:
842:
837:
834:
831:, p. 49.
830:
826:
821:
818:
815:, p. 43.
814:
809:
806:
803:, p. 82.
802:
797:
794:
791:, p. 82.
790:
786:
781:
778:
772:
767:
764:
762:
761:Tone policing
759:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
682:
679:
677:
674:
672:
671:
667:
665:
662:
660:
657:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
634:
630:
629:
624:
613:
608:
606:
604:
599:
595:
590:
587:
579:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
558:
555:
551:
544:
542:
540:
535:
527:
525:
522:
517:
515:
511:
503:
499:
494:
489:
485:
478:
474:
472:
470:
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
438:
435:
432:
431:
430:
427:
425:
419:
411:
409:
407:
402:
397:
393:
390:
386:
382:
377:
369:
367:
364:
359:
355:
351:
346:
344:
339:
330:
326:
323:
319:
316:
312:
311:
310:
308:
304:
302:
298:
293:
286:
283:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
238:
230:
226:
224:
222:
218:
214:
210:
205:
203:
195:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
174:
170:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
105:
101:
93:
89:
82:
80:
78:
74:
69:
64:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
42:
41:
33:
19:
3191:Whataboutism
3161:Scapegoating
3121:Obscurantism
3101:Minimisation
3006:Exaggeration
2909:
2908:
2788:Naturalistic
2771:
2759:
2739:
2710:
2694:of relevance
2637:
2615:Whataboutism
2607:
2583:
2577:Godwin's law
2569:
2550:
2549:
2432:
2425:Consequences
2406:Law/Legality
2380:Single cause
2353:
2346:
2186:
2054:Loki's Wager
2034:Equivocation
2027:Equivocation
1760:
1743:
1722:
1701:
1688:
1665:
1628:
1624:
1595:
1557:
1534:
1510:
1490:
1458:
1454:
1421:
1417:
1390:
1377:
1373:
1362:. Retrieved
1338:
1317:
1281:
1270:
1243:
1224:
1202:
1190:
1178:
1166:
1154:
1142:
1130:
1123:Wrisley 2019
1118:
1106:
1094:
1087:Tindale 2007
1082:
1040:
1028:
1021:Wrisley 2019
1012:
1005:Tindale 2007
1000:
993:Wrisley 2019
988:
981:Wrisley 2019
976:
961:Wrisley 2019
956:
944:
924:
912:
905:Sommers 1991
901:Olivesi 2010
896:
889:Wrisley 2019
884:
877:Tindale 2007
872:
860:
848:
836:
820:
808:
801:Tindale 2007
796:
789:Tindale 2007
780:
766:Whataboutism
701:Godwin's law
668:
597:
591:
585:
583:
573:
569:
561:
559:
553:
549:
548:
539:ex concessis
538:
533:
531:
520:
518:
513:
509:
507:
497:
488:Verbal abuse
484:Name calling
476:
465:
453:Barack Obama
442:
428:
423:
421:
400:
398:
394:
388:
380:
379:
357:
353:
347:
342:
337:
334:
328:
321:
314:
309:appears as:
306:
305:
300:
296:
295:
284:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
242:
240:
228:
220:
216:
212:
208:
206:
201:
199:
189:
185:
180:philosopher
171:philosopher
165:
160:
152:
148:
138:
133:
128:philosopher
121:
117:
107:
99:
97:
67:
65:
59:
50:
49:
39:
36:
3186:Weasel word
3136:Plain folks
3051:Gish gallop
3041:Flag-waving
2996:Doublespeak
2991:Dog whistle
2951:Blood libel
2808:Red herring
2565:Association
2246:Conjunction
2167:Composition
2064:Reification
1980:Existential
1932:Existential
1461:(1): 5–19.
1263:"Fallacies"
1207:Taylor 1995
1195:Walton 2008
1183:Orkibi 2018
1171:Walton 2006
1159:Weston 2018
1147:Walton 2001
1111:Walton 2006
1099:Hansen 2019
1060:Walton 1998
1045:Walton 2001
1033:Walton 2001
1017:Walton 1998
965:Walton 2015
929:Walton 2008
865:Walton 2001
841:Walton 2001
825:Walton 2001
785:Walton 2001
736:Red herring
696:Gaslighting
670:Ergo decedo
449:Sarah Palin
241:Fallacious
209:ad mulierem
196:Terminology
3211:Categories
3061:Half-truth
2966:Censorship
2910:Ad hominem
2784:Moralistic
2718:Sealioning
2712:Ad nauseam
2639:Ipse dixit
2551:Ad hominem
2375:Regression
2177:Ecological
1990:Four terms
1908:Masked man
1816:Ad hominem
1806:PhilPapers
1802:Ad hominem
1750:(Thesis).
1364:2020-01-08
773:References
741:Reputation
598:ad hominem
586:ad hominem
574:ad hominem
562:ad hominem
554:ad hominem
550:Ad hominem
534:ad hominem
521:ad hominem
514:ad hominem
510:ad hominem
498:Ad hominem
482:See also:
477:ad hominem
457:Bill Ayers
447:candidate
424:ad hominem
401:ad hominem
338:ad hominem
329:property x
322:property x
301:ad hominem
277:ad hominem
273:ad hominem
269:ad hominem
261:Ad hominem
243:ad hominem
235:See also:
229:ad hominem
213:ad feminam
207:The terms
190:ad hominem
186:ad hominem
169:Australian
161:ad hominem
153:ad hominem
149:ad hominem
145:John Locke
134:ad hominem
126:Pyrrhonist
122:ad hominem
100:ad hominem
77:John Locke
68:ad hominem
60:ad hominem
56:fallacious
40:Ad hominem
3071:Ideograph
3026:Fake news
2825:Straw man
2703:Arguments
2692:fallacies
2666:Tradition
2656:Etymology
2628:Authority
2609:Tu quoque
2593:Bulverism
2363:Gambler's
2332:Animistic
2276:Ambiguity
2242:Base rate
1985:Necessity
1857:fallacies
1787:171674012
1645:0920-427X
1584:1566-7650
1475:0047-2786
1446:254261480
1438:0920-427X
1409:0987-1381
1308:187211421
1075:Kolb 2019
937:Copi 1986
829:Wong 2017
756:Straw man
731:Race card
681:Fake news
603:apodictic
451:attacked
376:Bulverism
363:hypocrite
358:tu quoque
354:tu quoque
343:tu quoque
307:Tu quoque
292:Tu quoque
285:Tu quoque
265:tu quoque
231:arguments
227:Types of
114:sophistry
104:Aristotle
92:Aristotle
3242:Rhetoric
3091:Newspeak
2956:Buzzword
2851:Category
2483:Ridicule
2468:Flattery
2458:Children
2355:Post hoc
2235:McNamara
2197:Accident
2172:Division
2019:Informal
1820:examples
1687:(2008).
1663:(2006).
1653:16864574
1616:(2001).
1594:(1998).
1532:(2001).
1485:(1995).
1391:Quaderni
1137:, note1.
609:See also
508:Abusive
496:Abusive
475:Abusive
178:Canadian
139:Italian
3081:Lawfare
3046:Framing
2941:Big lie
2670:Novelty
2645:Poverty
2507:Loyalty
2473:Novelty
2450:Emotion
2399:Appeals
2368:Inverse
2348:Cum hoc
2337:Furtive
1855:Common
1269:(ed.).
1216:Sources
217:hominem
83:History
3176:Slogan
2755:Cliché
2690:Other
2661:Nature
2649:Wealth
2284:Accent
1870:Formal
1785:
1775:
1730:
1709:
1673:
1651:
1643:
1602:
1582:
1572:
1542:
1518:
1497:
1473:
1444:
1436:
1407:
1346:
1325:
1306:
1296:
1250:
1231:
3166:Senbu
2517:Spite
2411:Stone
1783:S2CID
1748:(PDF)
1649:S2CID
1621:(PDF)
1442:S2CID
1304:S2CID
1265:. In
46:Latin
3181:Spin
2603:Tone
2478:Pity
2463:Fear
1861:list
1773:ISBN
1728:ISBN
1707:ISBN
1671:ISBN
1641:ISSN
1600:ISBN
1580:ISSN
1570:ISBN
1540:ISBN
1516:ISBN
1495:ISBN
1471:ISSN
1434:ISSN
1405:ISSN
1344:ISBN
1323:ISBN
1294:ISBN
1248:ISBN
1229:ISBN
486:and
385:bias
221:homo
211:and
1922:In
1878:In
1804:at
1765:doi
1633:doi
1562:doi
1463:doi
1426:doi
1395:doi
1286:doi
532:An
3213::
2786:/
2668:/
2647:/
2495:/
2413:/
2244:/
2107:/
2103:/
2082:/
1781:.
1771:.
1647:.
1639:.
1629:15
1627:.
1623:.
1578:.
1568:.
1489:.
1469:.
1459:22
1457:.
1440:.
1432:.
1422:32
1420:.
1403:.
1389:.
1302:.
1292:.
1067:^
1052:^
903:;
471:.
257:.
75:;
2885:e
2878:t
2871:v
1863:)
1859:(
1848:e
1841:t
1834:v
1789:.
1767::
1754:.
1736:.
1715:.
1679:.
1655:.
1635::
1608:.
1586:.
1564::
1548:.
1524:.
1503:.
1477:.
1465::
1448:.
1428::
1411:.
1397::
1380:.
1367:.
1352:.
1331:.
1310:.
1288::
1275:.
1256:.
1237:.
1149:.
907:.
635:"
631:"
504:.
331:.
317:.
315:a
44:(
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
