Core claim: An argument is dismissed or undermined by attributing an external motive (interest, bias, emotion) to the person making it, instead of engaging with the substance of the claim.

• A claim is rejected, dismissed, or weakened by attributing an external motive (financial interest, bias, envy, hatred, self-interest) to the person making it, rather than by addressing the content of the argument.
• The argument implies that the speaker has no right to hold the position given the attributed motive (a “performative” ad hominem), rather than that the claim is factually wrong.
• The motive is attributed indirectly to the “argument” itself (e.g., “arguments like that are usually motivated by envy”) – which, since arguments have no motives, actually targets the speaker.
• The motive is implied rather than explicitly stated (e.g., “if they were true patriots, they would support this” – implying the opponent is driven by other motives).

• The attributed motive may well be true – the fallacy is that it is used as a substitute for engaging with the argument. A person with a conflict of interest can still make a valid argument.
• The fallacy works in reverse: even if a supporter of a position profits from it, that alone is no argument for or against the position.
• Specific terms exist for some motive types, e.g. argumentum ad iram (attributing anger or hatred as the driving motive).
• The implied form is the hardest to spot and the most unfair: since nothing is explicitly asserted, the target has little chance to defend themselves.

• The person themselves (or what they have done) is the topic of the discussion – e.g., investigating motives in a criminal case or assessing a witness’s credibility.
• The speaker’s independence is an explicit or implicit part of the claim (e.g., an opinion presented as an independent expert assessment), and evidence for the alleged conflict of interest is actually provided. Merely asserting a motive is not sufficient, even in this case.
• The person is acting in a professional role where advocating a position without personally endorsing it is part of the job (lawyer, lobbyist, spokesperson). Accusing such a person of defending a position “only because they are paid for it” is nonsensical – the opposing side does exactly the same.

• Ad hominem (MD) – the general category. Ask: is the attack specifically about an attributed motive behind the position (→ appeal to motive), or about the person’s character, identity, behaviour, or associations in general (→ general ad hominem)?
• Tu quoque (MD) – accuses the specific arguer of hypocrisy (not practising what they preach). Ask: is the attack about an inconsistency between the speaker’s words and deeds (→ tu quoque), or about an external motive for holding the position (→ appeal to motive)?
• Guilt by association (MD) – discredits through negative association with a group. Ask: is the person being linked to a bad group (→ guilt by association), or is a motive (interest, bias, emotion) being attributed to them (→ appeal to motive)?
• No true Scotsman (MD) – the implied form (“if they were true patriots, they would…”) resembles this fallacy. Ask: is the move defining the group so narrowly that the opponent is excluded from it (→ no true Scotsman), or implying the opponent is driven by hidden motives (→ appeal to motive)?

Input: “Scientific studies have shown that homeopathic treatments have no positive effect on patients beyond the placebo effect.” – “No surprise that you say that; I know you own shares in pharmaceutical companies!”
Output: Whether the speaker has a financial interest in the success of pharmaceutical companies is completely irrelevant to whether their argument about the study results is valid. The claim stands or falls on the evidence, not on the speaker’s interests. Note that the same applies in reverse: even if a supporter of homeopathy profits from it, that alone is no argument for or against its effectiveness.

Input: “There should be speed limits on motorways, as this would reduce the number of serious accidents with fatalities.” – “Arguments like that are usually motivated by envy of people who can afford more expensive cars and drive faster.”
Output: Although the “argument” is the explicit target, the actual attack is on the speaker – implicitly attributing envy to them. Arguments have no motives; people do. And even if the speaker were envious, that would not affect the validity of the traffic-safety claim.

Input: “If the members of the opposition were true patriots, they would support this law.”
Output: This implies – without explicitly asserting – that the opposition is not genuinely patriotic and is driven by other motives. Because nothing is stated outright, the target has little chance to respond. The law should be judged on its merits, not on the motives presumed for its opponents.

Input (legitimate): “We should migrate our entire IT to products from company XYZ, as they best fit our needs.” – “You have invested a lot of time and money in getting certified to administer that product family, so you clearly have a personal interest in us staying tied to it. I would recommend having a neutral party evaluate this decision.”
Output: This is a legitimate case: the speaker’s independence is part of the claim (they are being asked to make a strategic decision), and the alleged conflict of interest is concrete and evidenced (the certification investment). Demanding a neutral evaluation is a reasonable response, not a fallacy.

The English main_article is planned but not yet published; until it is, refer the user to further information via the main_article_de link (and use it immediately if the conversation is in German).