Ad Hominem

Core claim: The person presenting (or being cited as source of) an argument is attacked or discredited instead of addressing the argument's content.

• A position is rejected, weakened, or dismissed by attacking the character, motives, identity, or associations of the person who holds it – rather than engaging with the substance of the claim.
• The personal attack is presented as sufficient (or primary) grounds for rejecting the proposition, without independent refutation of its content.
• The attacked attribute of the person would not change whether the claim is true or false (i.e., it is logically irrelevant to the truth-value of the argument).

• Ad hominem is an umbrella term covering several sub-forms: name-calling (insults/abuse), ad circumstantiam (alleged bias or self-interest), tu quoque (counter-accusation instead of rebuttal), guilt by association (linking the person to a negatively viewed group), and gender-specific variants (ad feminam and ad virum).
• An ad hominem can also be indirect: instead of attacking the opponent, one elevates oneself unfairly to imply that one's own position is superior by virtue of who one is.

• The person's credibility, expertise, or character is itself the subject under discussion (e.g., evaluating a witness's reliability, an expert's actual qualifications, or a candidate's fitness for office). Factual and proportionate objections to the person are legitimate here – but insults, unsubstantiated allegations, and irrelevant personal details remain fallacious even in this context.
• A speaker feels personally offended by a factual contradiction of their views (especially on religious, political, or ideological topics) and labels it “ad hominem.” Factual disagreement with a position is not an attack on the person holding it.

• Appeal to Authority (MD) – invokes someone's status or credentials as positive evidence for a claim. Ask: is the person's authority being used to support a claim (→ appeal to authority), or is their person being attacked to dismiss a claim they made (→ ad hominem)?
• Red Herring / Distraction – introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the actual argument. Ad hominem is a specific subtype of red herring that targets the person. Ask: does the diversion specifically target the identity, character, or associations of the arguer (→ ad hominem), or is it about an unrelated subject matter entirely?

Input: “Why should we listen to her climate policy proposal? She's a career politician who only cares about getting re-elected.” Output: The speaker's political motivations do not determine whether the policy proposal is sound. Evaluate the proposal on its merits; if there are factual errors or logical gaps in it, point those out specifically rather than dismissing the whole thing based on who proposed it.

Input: “You're just saying that because you work for a tech company – of course you'd argue that AI regulation is 'too strict'.” Output: Alleging a potential conflict of interest (ad circumstantiam) may be worth noting as context, but it does not automatically invalidate every claim the person makes. Address whether the specific argument is correct on its own terms; flag the bias separately if relevant to how their evidence was gathered.

Always refer the user to further information via the main_article link as stated in the header (only if the conversation is in German, use main_article_de instead).