Among the fallacious arguments, those everyday interactions so dear to debaters, those lovers of verbal jousting, who sometimes exist more to influence the gallery than to put forward an idea, there are some that outclass the others in many respects, and this is certainly the case with ad hominem.

Remember that this misleading argument consists of disqualifying a thesis by attacking the person who defends it, rather than responding to its content. It therefore makes a gradual or abrupt shift from the validity of an idea to a psychological, moral, social, political, or cultural value linked to the person expressing it.

Among other characteristics, we find an attack on the person, not their argument; the absence of any logical link between the flaws invoked and the argument; a shift in the discussion and an apparent refutation.

In many debates, politicians end up attacking their “colleagues” without responding or debating the substance, perhaps because they are not up to the ethical debate. Perhaps they prefer a disrespectful approach, or perhaps they are looking for an easier way to achieve a result, without worrying about the moral aspects.

In any case, its abundant use on television sets has proven its effectiveness and formidable power.

First, it titillates the other person’s emotions, which has the ability to short-circuit reason and trigger “automatic behavior” mode.

Second, it reduces the cognitive effort of viewers or television audiences by subconsciously encouraging them to focus on the form of the exchanges rather than their substance.

Finally, it exploits or activates various cognitive biases such as confirmation bias (those who already tended to think poorly of the debater find their opinion confirmed), the negative halo effect (the projection of an impression of antipathy created by the ad hominem onto other flaws or weaknesses), illusory correlation (between what is highlighted by the ad hominem and other negative characteristics of the person), and reactive devaluation (everything that person says will be filtered by the effect of the ad hominem), to name but a few.

Here are some very powerful forms of the ad hominem argument:

You’re saying that because it suits your situation

You’re too emotionally involved to be objective

Before considering anything this person has to say, you should know that…

Given what you’ve done in the past, you’re in no position to lecture anyone

You’ve never been in the field, so your opinion is worthless

In any case, with your profile, we know very well how you think

No serious person says that kind of thing

They are recognizable because they start with “you are…,” “you have…,” “you do…” instead of focusing on the argument and trying to show that it is inaccurate.

A rather masterful example of ad hominem captivated millions of viewers during the second round of the French presidential debate on May 2, 2012, between François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy. This anaphora made a lasting impression during the face-off and probably sealed Sarkozy’s fate. No fewer than 17 times, François Hollande repeated “I, President of the Republic…” followed by “I will not do…” implying “what Sarkozy did” or “I will do…” implying “what Sarkozy did not do.”

Prepared down to the smallest detail and learned by heart, this sequence quickly undermined Nicolas Sarkozy’s credibility, while carefully avoiding demonstrating that any of the indirect accusations were true and without ever mentioning his name. What a shame that after such a tour de force, François Hollande failed to win over the French people to the point of avoiding the shame of running for re-election in 2017.

How should we respond to these fallacious arguments?

First, let’s look at three things you should avoid:

1. Justifying yourself at length
2. Attacking back
3. Proving that you are a “good person”

Here are three ideas to apply:

1. Separate the person from the idea: if you want to discuss me, let’s do it separately. What is your argument on the merits?
2. Reframing logically: what you’re saying is irrelevant to the argument, I’d like you to respond specifically to what I’ve raised.
3. The mirror: so, if I understand correctly, the fact that I am who I am automatically invalidates my reasoning?

In summary, an ad hominem argument is not contradicted, it is defused by curbing its effects.

This requires composure, self-confidence, and good preparation.

Here are some examples of assertive responses that aim to neutralize the effect of ad hominem:

That’s not a response to the argument.

What is your point?

Let’s talk about the subject, not me.

How does that invalidate the argument?

Can you formulate a factual counterargument?

How does my identity invalidate my reasoning?

Finally, here are three ways to turn the ad hominem argument against its user, without attacking them in return, but rather by exposing its mechanism in public, on the assumption that the person using it implicitly acknowledges that they have run out of arguments:

1. 1. Denounce the process: here, you are not responding to the argument, you are talking about me. Does that mean you have no response to the substance?
   2. Reverse the burden: how does what you say about me specifically invalidate this argument?
   3. The framework and the rules: When we attack the person rather than the argument, it’s usually because we no longer have any substantive points to make. Let’s get back to the subject

Good luck dealing with ad hominem attacks. Let’s not give up, let’s let critical thinking and assertiveness prevail.