Argument ad Hominem

A logical fallacy where someone claims that the argument or position of someone else is invalid not due to any faults in it but based off of faults, real or imagined, of the other person.
This argument does not make the claim it is used in valid, but also does not render it wholly invalid provided that valid arguments may be found in other parts of the claim.

Examples of Argument ad Hominem:

1. Your presidential candidate has been shown to have been cheating on her wife, how the hell can you trust her to manage labor issues?
2. He's not a valid candidate, just look at how he dresses! If he can't mage his wardrobe, how's he going to manage a whole state?

Argument ad Hominem by Rando Enby February 3, 2021

Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem

A hybrid fallacy common in political debates online where the focus shifts simultaneously to the argument's structure, the arguer's actions, and the arguer's person—all while avoiding the actual content. The classic form: "You're proving the point of this post by your very response!" The move claims that the way someone argues (structure), what they do (action), or who they are (person) actually demonstrates the truth of the opposing position. It's a triple evasion—structure, action, and person all serve as distractions from content. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it feels clever—as if you've caught someone in a performative contradiction—but it still doesn't engage what they actually said.

"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem—using my tone (action), my style (structure), and me (person) to dismiss my points without addressing them. Maybe I was angry; maybe my style was messy; maybe I'm flawed. None of that addresses whether my critique was valid. The move is clever evasion, not engagement."

Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem by Abzugal February 28, 2026