YSK: If someone attacks your frustration during a heated debate, it's an "Ad Hominem" fallacy

Redditor kicks the YSK wasp nest and stirs up some ultimately tedious shenanigans.

Wow. Did you just learn about fallacies mister 16 year old at a 7th grade level?

No, but we are all tripped up by them sometimes and it's good to be reminded of them.

And there may be younger people on reddit learning this for the first time.

Try to relax a little, dude

Woah, are you attacking his frustration? Way to ad hominem there

The difference here is that I addressed his argument first, before also suggesting he takes a chill pill.

I didn't say something like, "Wow. You're overreacting. Go get your hysteria under control, and maybe you'll see that I'm right." Which is another example of an ad hominem that uses someone's emotional state as the reason for denying their point.

And you should know that often times just spewing "thats [insert logical fallacy we learned in 10th grade]" isnt going to help you win an argument.

100% correct. Avoiding potholes doesn't get you from point A to point B. You still have to drive the car.

You should still try to avoid potholes while driving though.

Ok, but in a real-life scenario, if you're debating with someone, you're not just trying to get from Point A to Point B. You're trying to bring this other person along with you to Point B as well.

And if they're running into potholes and your response is just, "You're running into potholes," you're never going to get them to where you want them to be.

There's a reason the person keeps hitting potholes (emotions, misunderstanding your argument, etc.), and if your goal is actually to convince them of something, then you have to figure out what's causing them to hit the potholes, not just dismissively telling them they're hitting potholes, which is probably just going to cause them to hit even more potholes.

That being said, everything I just said goes out the window if you're arguing with some rando on the internet. Then, it's a waste of time trying to get any sort of collaboration.

Knowing about what an Ad Hominem is doesn't mean you can "Gotcha" your opponent. The reason why remembering logical fallacies helps you is that it lets you avoid being dragged down or distracted by them.

You're not going to point and say "That is a pothole" while driving, but knowing what they look like and keeping an eye out for them lets you avoid them.

And this is useful so you can be the turd that points out logical fallacies in the middle of an argument

You seem angry, so I'll ignore that.

im guessing you're trying to be clever here but this isnt ad hominem either

Oh? What is it then?

there's no one term to describe somebody who has no interest in faithfully having an argument. it's not an ad hominem "fallacy" unless you are trying to use it to support your side in an argument. if you're just calling somebody an idiot because you've had enough trying to argue with them, it IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

for example: you are an idiot - this is an insult i'm using to express how exhausting and poor your rhetoric is, but isnt an argument, therefore is not ad hominem. i have insulted you, but have not engaged in the ad hominem fallacy.

and for your consideration, you don't need to have a reason to not continue having an argument with dishonest people. if someone dismisses you or insults you, they are not interested in the outcome of your discussion and pointing to a universal umbrella 'fallacy' that you can 'prove' they used to allow you to 'win' doesnt actually change the fact that you're arguing with a brick wall. you didn't 'win' the argument because somebody insulted you or engaged in dishonest tactics, you just wasted your time.

You have poor manners and lack emotional control, so your arguments must be wrong; whoever lacks emotional control must also lack logic. If you're angry and rude, you must be blinded by rage, and your argument isn't reliable.

Who would listen to someone so angry, who must be wrong all the time? I'd rather listen to someone calm who can form logical arguments. Have a nice day! :)

you're more obsessed with 'winning' and being right than learning anything or discovering the world or expanding your perspective, which is why you're an idiot.

Listen dude, it's useful to know logical fallacies and cognitive biases outside of a debate room floor, because not only do our opponents make them, which can trip us up, but we make them ourselves all the time.

Knowing common logical pitfalls isn't about saying "gatcha" to other people, but about communicating well. Being the best that we can be.

I really don't get where all this hostility is coming from.

Here is an example-free reiteration of my OP:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument. An emotional state is a personal trait.

You can insult me all you like, but I'm working off of citable sources. If you have a problem with that, wikipedia has an edit request feature; so take it up with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently 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.

everything that opposes you has to rise to hostility when you're this stubborn and short-sighted. you made a 'you should know' on a topic you clearly misunderstand and are disagreeing with the dozens of people who are trying to correct you. you spent 5 seconds learning something and immediately jumped onto social media to pat yourself on the back for knowing something that others don't, and are in denial that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Take it up with wikipedia, dude.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber."

this isn't something that can be proven true or false.

op ironically demonstrates a misunderstanding of ad hominem while attempting to clarify ad hominem.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber [because that will make the baby feel good]."

Sorry I wasn't more clear with the implications, dude. Does it make more sense now!

not really. feeling good is subjective, it's an opinion. saying "no, it's bad for you," doesn't even refute that it feels good. you've tangled your example from the start. it's not a logical proof.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

There is a ton of evidence showing the negative effects of tobacco smoke. If you think that someone saying "Don't put the baby in a smoking chamber, that is terrible for its health." Is not a logical way to refute "This will make the baby feel good," you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

I'm going to step away from your disingenuous pedantry.

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy. I'll use it to respond to other comments in this thread.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

my dude, that's not how a logical argument works. that's still an option because it cannot be proven true or false. it's certainly a reasonable opinion, but there's no study that feeling good is objectively better than a longer life expectancy.

you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

false dichotomy, i could be right and you have merely mistaken how logical arguments are constructed for "pedantry."

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy.

you are a clown. you are not wrong because you are a clown. you are just both wrong and a clown. 🤡

Okay, I'm blocking you now. Try to pay attention in class tomorrow.

Attacks your frustration? Not sure if English is your primary language but an ad hominem is when someone attacks you in a personal way unrelated to the argument at hand.

For example if Trump and Biden are arguing politically about the recent tariffs and their effects on the economy. Biden, being against these tariffs says it's a terrible idea because Trump is a racist sexist nazi.

That did not address any information about the tariffs and the economy. It was an attack on his character and is considered an ad hominem fallacy.

You sound angry. I don't have to listen to angry people. Learn to control your emotions, and maybe you'll see sense.

lol I'm not angry at all. I gave a very relevant example of an ad hominem fallacy I see commonly on Reddit. Nothing I said shows a loss of control over my emotions. You're reaching and making assumptions

Person A hasn't taken any action yet presumably. The example was worded poorly. We're talking about logical reasoning in arguments not reacting to real world scenarios.

Point is I can just say "are you insane?" to anything. Asking "are you insane" doesn't refute a point using logical reasoning. When you say it you are making a point to question the soundness of mind of the person you are debating to devalue their argument not on its merits (or lacketherof) but rather the quality of their character or personhood. Ad hominem, Latin for "against the man."

You sound angry, like someone who can't control their emotions. I don't need to listen to you.

lol

You're not conveying any substantive new information here. You're just designating the behaviour under a provocative term. Such a midwit post.

Hey, that's okay. As you can see in this thread, a lot of people seem not to know about ad hominem attacks, especially if said fallacies are based on attacking an opponents emotional state.

Try not to fall into the Curse of Knowledge cognitive bias (believing everyone else should already know information that you know).

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/management/curse-of-knowledge

Uh, no. More like "You don't know what you're talking about because you're a ladygarden."

Here is an example-free reiteration of my claim:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument.

An emotional state is a personal trait.

Here is the easiest-to-access source I used (out of several). I understand that wikipedia is easily refuted, so feel free to dive into the sources the article sites, or to submit an edit request to wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently 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.

this is the most redditor post I've ever seen

That makes sense, since we are both on Reddit.

Sorry if this offends you, but you're a Redditor too.

Redditors don't know what an ad hominem or tu quoque fallacy are, and refuse to take the ten seconds to look up what they are. Why are you contributing to this misunderstanding OP.

why

Bro, I went off of the definition. Send a source my way, because the multiple ones I found said that an ad hominem attacks a person or an attribute of a person. Emotional state is an attribute.

I see a lot of left wingers use these types of ad hominem attacks on reddit

Maybe you argue with a lot of liberal people?

Be careful not to fall into the "Fallacy fallacy." Just because someone makes a logical fallacy by mistake doesn't mean their core argument is wrong.

Well a few misconceptions. I don't go around trying to argue with liberals on Reddit. This is more something I've observed.

Secondly, I know full well what the "fallacy fallacy" is. No need to explain it to me. But simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong nor that the fallacy fallacy was made. If I assume the argument is wrong (which I don't) because of a fallacy they made, then it's a fallacy (on me).

simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong

... Yes. That is the definition of the Fallacy Fallacy. I'm glad you are on the ball.

What I'm getting at is that if you are seeing a lot of "left-wingers" make a certain mistake in their arguments, maybe you aren't seeing a lot of "non-left-wingers" arguing. Do you often see conservatives argue, or do you avoid that through circumstances of shared viewpoints?

In short, from the way you talk, it makes me think you may have a bit of a confirmation bias. There aren't many non-conservatives who use the term "left-winger".

Thanks! Next time I'm fighting with my wife I will show them this reddit post, it's irrefutable. Checkmate, b-word!

Well, if your wife tries to refocus the subject onto how you are feeling instead of what you are trying to say, then she is wrong.

That is, as long as your emotion isn't driving you to do or say anything harmful. If you're just frustrated, she shouldn't use that as an excuse to do bad things.

This is perhaps the worst explanation of ad hominem I have ever read

He's not explaining ad hominem in general, he's saying that attacking the anger of your opponent is an example of ad hominem. You're looking at a guy say "a cat is an animal" and telling him that's the worst definition of animal you've ever seen. That wasn't really the goal to begin with.

I'm not saying I thought the goal was to define the term. It's a poor explanation because it reads like someone who's never written in the English language before. What the frick is a "cocktail smoking chamber?" It would also be helpful to use an actual example that someone might encounter in real life.

Hi. Please provide a different example. Or are you just the kind of person who can only criticize but not create?

And just use Google for learning what a cocktail smoking chamber is. While you're at it, maybe Google the word "Hyperbole".

Hyperbole is not a useful rhetorical device when providing an example of a phenomenon you think people should know about.

And I think you also need to look up cocktail smoking, since you appear to think it has something to do with smoking cigarettes. Or at least for some reason you have made your fictional character believe that.

... bro. None of that matters. My core argument remains the same. I was going off of definitions and providing a passable enough example to understand.

I'm SORRY you're not satisfied with the example. Next time, make your own post about it and stop nitpicking things for no good reason. Saying "Hey, this isn't good enough for me." Without providing an example of what IS good enough for you is just being a PITA.

Disclaimer: when it comes to logical fallacies like these, they are best applied to debates and discussions where both parties are invested in coming to a legitimate exchange of ideas, and maybe even a resolution to a complicated issue. Trying to apply these logical fallacies in day-to-day interactions with your friends and coworkers is kind of silly, and may not be appropriate.

Ad hominem attacks are a bit more general than what OP has described. An ad hominem is any statement that attacks a person's conduct, character, physical attributes, motives, etc, rather than the argument that person is making. For example:

A) "I believe that society should do X"

B) "Of course you'd think that, you degenerate."

Person B has made an ad hominem statement.

They aren't addressing the point that person A made. They're just claiming that they don't have to listen to person A because they are "a degenerate" (and swap "degenerate" with pretty much anything - doesn't even have to be an "insult"). As if person A being a degenerate somehow makes the entire point they're making invalid.

Ad hominem attacks are usually fallacious, but not always. If they are offered as a means to simply end discussion, then yeah, it's probably fallacious. But there are also plenty of times when pointing out someone's character/motives/conduct can be crucial in developing a counterpoint.

A) "We should tax poor people, and not tax people who make over $1mil a year."

B) "You're just saying that because you don't want to be taxed, and you're greedy."

Person B made two ad hominem statements ("you don't want to be taxed" is attacking A's motives, and "you're greedy" is attacking A's character/conduct). Instead of addressing A's argument ("millionaires shouldn't be taxed"), they went directly to A's motives, and are attempting to discredit their whole argument based off of that single person's motive. B may be correct, but it's not a logical reason on its own to oppose A's statement, and making such a statement doesn't foster more discussion. All B's statement does is tell A that B is already biased against them, and there's likely very little that A can say to change that. And if that's the case, why are we spending time debating at all?

That's what I said, dude. If someone is addressing your emotions, ala "You're triggered so I'm going to ignore you", that is shifting focus onto the person's emotional state instead of their argument. An ad hominem.

I appreciate that, but also, as I said, it's not just pointing out someone's emotional state during an argument.

Also, if someone points out your frustrated state during an argument, it isn't an ad hominem attack unless the person is using it to end the discussion/discredit your points. It's one thing to say, "Hey, you are getting really animated about this, let's calm down so we can have a productive discussion. Now, can you please repeat what you said?" but it's another to say "You got angry, so I don't have to listen to someone who can't control their temper."

All I'm saying is that there's more nuance to it than simply, "If someone points out you got mad during an argument, that's an ad hominem."

EDIT: In a higher comment, you explicitly asked someone for better examples of ad hominem, so I feel like my original comment works. Also, just Google "ad hominem attacks" and I'm sure you'll find even better examples than mine.

Cool.

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning "to the man" or "against the man".

It describes a fallacious argument strategy that attacks the person making an argument instead of their argument itself.

🤔

That's right. So unless you think that a person and their emotional state (or them being "triggered") is separate from their personhood, attacking someone's emotions instead of their argument is an ad hominem.

um...not really. It's an aside.

Ad hominem is something like, "you're stupid for thinking that" or "you're a woke libtard" or "what a bunch of sheeples". Knocking the character of the person, not the reasoning of the argument.

You seem angry, so your arguments can be ignored.

Thank you for this wonderful information. Because of this useful information now, my life is more peaceful, and I got a 7-figure job. My business got successful, and now I'm multimillionaire and planning for 5 kids with my wife. I will retire next month peacefully, and then I will do world travel. All credit goes to you. Without your information, it would not have ben possible.

When others were out partying, I studied logical fallacies.

When they were out having premarital s*x, I mastered cognitive biases.

While they wasted their days at the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated logos and ethos.

And now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate they have the audacity to come to me for help.