Tu quoque

Core claim: A valid point is dismissed or weakened by accusing the specific arguer of hypocrisy – pointing out that they themselves don't practise what they preach – instead of addressing the substance of their argument.

• An accusation of inconsistency (“you do it too”, “you're a hypocrite”) directed at the person making the argument is used as the primary response, rather than engaging with the content of their claim.
• The counter-accusation implies that because the arguer fails to follow their own advice or position, the position itself must be wrong or invalid.
• A serious claim is deflected by pointing out that the accuser themselves (or their immediate circle) engages in similar behaviour, thereby implying the criticism is illegitimate.

• Tu quoque is a specific sub-form of ad hominem: it doesn't attack character in general but specifically targets an inconsistency between the arguer's words and deeds.
• The fallacy is not that hypocrisy exists (it may well be true), but that it is used as a substitute for engaging with the argument. A person can be both a hypocrite and right about something.
• Overlap with whataboutism: In practice, tu quoque and whataboutism (MD) frequently overlap – especially in political contexts where “you do it too” quickly becomes “your whole group/country does it too.” The key distinction: tu quoque targets the specific arguer's behaviour as a reason to dismiss their point (a logical error), while whataboutism deflects by pointing at other groups or actors doing similar/worse things, aiming to shut down the discussion entirely (a rhetorical tactic). A single statement can exhibit both patterns simultaneously.

• The person's behaviour is itself part of the argument under discussion (e.g., evaluating whether a politician's actions align with their stated policies, assessing a witness's credibility, or judging a public figure whose authority rests on personal integrity).
• A speaker demands solidarity in behaviour: “If you think X matters, your own conduct should reflect that” – this is not fallacious as long as it doesn't dismiss the underlying claim. (Example: “You preach saving money but spend lavishly” → legitimate response: “I agree saving is important; let me explain why I can't do it right now.”)
• The hypocrisy accusation is used in addition to a substantive rebuttal, not instead of one.

• Ad hominem (MD) – attacks character or identity broadly. Ask: is the attack specifically about inconsistency between words and deeds (→ tu quoque), or about some other personal attribute (→ general ad hominem)?
• Whataboutism (MD) – deflects criticism by pointing at other groups or actors doing similar/worse things, with the goal of shutting down the discussion. Ask: is the counter-accusation directed at the specific arguer's own behaviour (→ tu quoque), or at third parties / other groups to imply “everyone does it, so let's stop talking” (→ whataboutism)? Note: these often overlap in practice.
• Guilt by association (MD) – discredits through negative associations with a group. Ask: is the person being linked to a bad group (→ guilt by association), or accused of not following their own advice (→ tu quoque)?
• Appeal to tradition (MD) – defends a practice because it's old/customary. Ask: is the defence “we've always done it this way” (→ appeal to tradition), or “you do it too, so your criticism is invalid” (→ tu quoque)?

Input: “Smoking causes cancer and you should quit.” – “Oh really? And what about you? You're a smoker too!”
Output: The responder's own smoking habit does not determine whether the medical claim about cancer risk is true. The argument stands or falls on its evidence, not on the speaker's personal consistency.

Input: “We should reduce single-use plastics.” – “You drive a petrol car every day, so why should I care about plastic bags?”
Output: Driving a car and using plastic bags are different environmental issues with different scales of impact. The speaker's imperfect behaviour on one issue doesn't invalidate the argument for action on another.

Input: “Your company's data practices violate user privacy.” – “You use our free services every day, so you have no right to complain!”
Output: Using a service and objecting to its data practices are not mutually exclusive. The specific claim about privacy violations should be evaluated on its own merits; the fact that the critic also uses the product doesn't make the criticism invalid.

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).