In political discourse, it is common to use fallacious arguments which often divert the audience’s attention from the subject and focus it on the opponent instead. Such tricks can be especially helpful if one side in a debate is ill-equipped with proper arguments and wants to hide this fact by employing chicanery. Politicians very often use such tricks when they want to appear to have a moral high-ground and show it to their constituents, who are often less interested in merit and more interested in perceiving themselves as morally right.

Argumentum ad hominem

This type of argument consists in “attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than a position or argument” [1]. If the opponent in a discussion proposes a valid argument, it can sometimes be shown that the argument is in opposition to that person’s other views or affiliations.

For example, a person states that smoking cigarettes is unhealthful as it causes lung cancer, laryngeal cancer, and many other types of diseases. To use an ad hominem argument against this person, one could ask “why are you a smoker, then?” This argument is fallacious because being a smoker has nothing at all to do with the proven medical fact that inhaling tobacco smoke has a negative influence on the smoker’s health. The tobacco addict knows very well that their addiction is harmful and their individual habit has no relation to medical facts.

Argumentum ad personam

This type of argument is similar to the ad hominem one, but goes as far as being rude and insulting to the opponent. The subject of the dispute is abandoned entirely in favor of attacking the opponent in a spiteful way. Schopenhauer adds that this trick owns its popularity to the fact that “everyone is able to carry it into effect” [2]. In other words, arguments ad personam do not require any knowledge of the subject, and hence their frequent use.

Arguments ad personam serve an additional important purpose – their goal is to anger the opponent. When angry, “he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies” [2]. Name-calling is often employed by children in this manner and, consequently, the argument itself can be considered childish.

One instance of public ad personam arguments can be found in numerous Twitter messages posted by the former US president Donald J. Trump. In one of his tweets, Mr. Trump called his presidential election opponent, Joe Biden, “another low I.Q. individual” [3], while in another, he called the vice-presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, “very nasty” [3].

In democratic political systems, politicians are selected for their opinions on social, economic, and other related matters. Name-calling serves as passing opinions irrelevant to the important decisions which a politician has to take. Moreover, offending political opponents moves the debate subject away from matters concerning the constituents and, instead, appeals to a lower instinct of verbal aggression. Again, a comparison to unruly children can be drawn here.

Conclusion

Audiences should always look out for ad hominem and ad personam arguments because they are often cynically used to hide incompetence, pass questionable moral judgments, and/or provide a distraction from the subject. A real debate, especially on delicate political issues, requires careful deliberation of facts, while personal qualities or affiliations of a given speaker are entirely disconnected from the subject. It is worth noting that the use of personal attacks should also mark the speaker as deceptive and, potentially, immature.