The best way to defend against an Ad Hominem?

Hello!

Oftentimes, when I present a controversial topic or point of view on internet forums or in real life, most people reply to my argument with ad hominems (some of them really harsh), despite that I have presented my view in a calm, reasonable way.

Now, how right or wrong my controversial stance is, is beside the point.

What bothers me is that people refuse to engage in an intelligent discussion, they refuse my reasonably constructed arguments, and they try to dismiss them with ad hominems.

For example:

"I believe that going out late at nights to go to pubs to get drunk is a waste of time, money, energy and health and that you're much better off never doing that and going to sleep early."

And a typical response would be:

"Wow, you must have no friends/you are boring/you are weird/you're like an old man... etc."

So clearly those people refuse to engage in an intelligent discussion about the matter, and they dumb down the interaction to a point where it is impossible for me to be reasonable with them, since they won't hear it anyway.

My question is, how do I handle such situations?

How do I best deal with Ad Hominem attacks? I recognize them, I see the flaw in their reasoning, but how can I use that against them? How do I exploit that weakness?

Maybe my mistake is that I am trying to get my point across from a level, or standpoint which is too foreign to my audience's understanding.

Thanks in advance!

Hi Teodor,

The best way to deal with them, is to prevent them! Of course, you don't have full control over how people respond, but you can influence the way they respond by the way you state your argument. Be as diplomatic as possible and try not to appear as if you are coming across as judgmental. Rather than

I believe that going out late at nights to go to pubs to get drunk is a waste of time, money, energy and health and that you're much better off never doing that and going to sleep early.

Try stating it more as an invitation to a discussion, softening some of the language:

While I can understand the appeal of intoxication, staying out late and drinking to intoxication comes with the cost of time, money, energy, and health, that I believe is too heavy a price to pay. A social life is very important, but a good social life doesn't have to require so much personal sacrifice.

This kind of statement is less likely to enrage those who disagree with your position. Of course, people will still attack you. When they do, humor can be an effective way to both diffuse the anger and point out that they are not addressing the point.

While the nursing home does want me in bed by 8 o'clock, I choose to connect with people socially in different environments that are far more conducive to my schedule, pocketbook, vitality, and health.

Hi Teodor!

In my experience, sometimes ad hominems can't be prevented. Some people are simply not interested in debating a topic rationally and don't care at all about the way they reason or about how others reason. Even if it's hard, in some situations we should abandon the discussion/debate wishing these people a good day. There is no point in debating or intelligently discussing with someone which has an insult for almost every argument. But it's not very likely that we will encounter these situations very often.

For those people which seem to display some interest in truth, evidence and good reasoning when they commit an ad hominem fallacy I believe the following might be useful:

1.For the abusive ad hominem : Politely show where the arguer has committed this fallacy (abuse) and then direct the attention to the argument by saying something like: "You might be right about characteristic X, but what do you think of my argument?" Or :"Even if you are right about me do you think my idea has some merit?"

2. For the tu-quoque ad hominem : If the inconsistency is real, acknowledge it- if not, assume, for the sake of the discussion that the inconsistency is real. If you support a position but act in such a way that is not consistent with it just admit it. Confess that you may lack credibility but point out this is not a good reason to discount the argument(s) for that position. Ask the arguer if independent of the lack of credibility and/or hypocrisy the argument(s) offers good reasons to accept them.

3. For the circumstantial ad hominem : Ask the arguer to imagine , for a moment, that you are not in the position in which by default you have to believe or act in a certain way or don't have any vested interested in the subject matter. Now, would the argument have some merit? Note that it does not matter that these allegation are true or not. It does not matter if you actually have a vested interest in, let's say - selling a product. We just assume they are true to avoid discussing them and to get the arguer evaluate the argument.

Others think there are many other forms of ad hominem. These are the most common. If these suggestions don't work, you can always give and absurd counterexample. For instance: "If Hitler, which was a scumbag, believed that 2+2 equals 4, would that make it false?

I'd just call them on it, "That's a personal attack, and you're not responding to the topic at hand."

Your question is a good one, but the example you give is not actually an ad hominem though I can understand why it might be upsetting.

An ad hom is a claim thatteh argument is wrong of should not be take seriously because the source is bad in some way.

In teh example you gave the response is relevant, if a bit flippant and degrading.

It would be much like saying:

I believe bathing is a waste of time.

response

You must be so smelly that you have a hard time making friends.

A nicer response would have been, bathing is an important use of time because it removes smells that can interfere with social functions.

But the first response is not really an ad-hom arguement, it is a counter argument that also happens to contain an insult.

That said, either abuse or true ad hom arguments like. Your argument is wrong because you are "X" type of person. Can be best dealt with.

1) Address the fact that they are engaging in abuse or ad hom.
2) Assert that if they have a real argument they should make it instead of engaging in fallacies or abuse.
3) If they fail to produce any argument, point out the fact that this is evidence that they do not have a valid argument.
4) Realize its the internet and their are lots of people who get thier jollies by being contrary and upsetting people. Don't take it personally. Honestly, assuming you are an adult that does not have an emotional condition like depression. random people on the internet should not be able to upset you with insults.

You do have one alternative. if you don't mind random people hitting on you and sending you occasional dick pics, pretend you are female. People are much less likely to insult you. I know, i have tried it extensively.