Why do people reply with ad hominem arguments?

Question

Instead of simply replying to a question, why do people feel the need to reply with ad hominem attacks?

Answer 1

Simplicity

Answer 2

Human nature, I suppose -- especially for people who don't know how to argue logically or simply want to be a smartass.

Plus, political advertising these days teaches us that ad hominem arguments can be effective because they distract people from the real issues.

For example:

-- Candidate A is opposes (or supports) the war in Iraq.

-- Candidate A is in favor of (or opposed to) gay marriage.

-- Therefore, Candidate A is a godless heathen (or a Bible-thumping moron) and you can't believe a word he says.

Oops! What happened to the debate on Iraq?

-- Candidate B thinks we should spend more money on education.

-- Candidate B is just a tax-and-spend liberal.

-- Therefore, you can't believe a thing Candidate B says.

Ohmygod! We can't have any more tax and spend liberals in office. No way I can vote for her!

Meanwhile, when do we get to discuss education?

What I don't get is why there are so many *arguments* in response to questions. Granted, some questions have a point of view and make arguments of their own -- as in "Don't you think this particular ethnic group/religion/sports team/person is full of crap?" But if a question writer just wants more information, there's no need to argue about anything.

Answer 3

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

I believe it happens when the guilty party is either too emotionally worked up to think of a sensible retort, or when they are proven wrong, but can not accept it.

Answer 4

Simply put, they have come to a point in a discussion where they don't see a way to logically win. They hope that discrediting the messenger rather than the message will make their point stronger.

In reality, this works on many people because they discredit the message by who is delivering it. If you make the person look as if they can't be trusted, then people would be apt to not trust what they are saying. However, it is logically unsound and does not strengthen the attackers argument.

Answer 5

Racism
Like the classic example from the Deutsche Physik movement, which argued as follows:

Einstein claims relativity is correct.
Einstein is Jewish.
Hence relativity is false.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies .

Answer 6

No I actually love that, because without fallacies, arguments would just be boring and straightforward. I prefer to see a conversation a bit like a fight, with sneaky tricks and moves too quick to follow. I actually love love love it when someone calls me on my bull*bleeeeeeeep* :) What bothers me much more, is the notion that "that's just how I feel so you need to respect my opinion". I think any opinion or idea should be open for discussion and people should be prepared to argue all the points they believe in. That's how you reach deeper understanding on a larger scale, because people keep doing that.

Answer 7

because facts tend to be few and far between when people are feeling defensive about their arguments. it's easier to attack another person rather than engage in an intelligent exchange with them. that would involve listening, reasoning and attempts at empathy. not bloody likely.

and i wonder how many people have to look up ad hominem ...

Answer 8

i dont know.

I tend to take yahoo answers seriously, and when i see people asking ridiculous questions ("Why are monkeys sexy?" seriously, i just saw that question) sometimes i will reply with something equally ridiculous.

but other than that i usually just respond in kind. if someone poses a serious question i answer them respectfully, and if i say something that could be interpreted as rude, or off base, or a dissent from the majority of answerers i always list the points of my arguement.

I normally dont attack (or otherwise answer without facts) as a form of answer unless the question posed was racist, completely ridiculous or pornographic in nature. I wont run the question poser around in circles or post something that isnt helpful or isnt related to the topic.

Does this answer you question? I know what you mean, if its any consolation.

Answer 9

well, somewhat along these lines, personal attacks are a sure sign of upcoming weak arguments, and/or alternative points of view that will be poorly presented. they also indicate a lack of self restraint and discipline. but, these days as the anxiety rises over the world situation, tempers get short and civility flies out the window. just a sign of the times, i guess. oh, well. cheers :-) actually, now that i reflect, i'm kind of guilty of this offense when it comes to "high level" republicans. i usually refer to them as sociopathic, bald, morbidly obese and impotent. is truth a defense, as is the case in defamation?

Answer 10

Charter assassination is often easier, and to some extent, more productive (for the attacker) than to support ones position using reason and facts. It almost always takes much less time and effort.