EN BG

Ad Hominem

"Don't listen to him — he's not even a real doctor." And just like that, the evidence he presented vanishes from the conversation.

Ad hominem is the move of attacking the person instead of addressing their argument. It's the most common escape route when someone presents evidence you'd rather not deal with. "She has a political agenda, so her data is invalid." "He was funded by industry, so his findings don't count." "They're not qualified to have an opinion on this." None of these statements address what was actually said. They address who said it — and that's the point.

The trick works because it feels rational. Questioning someone's credibility seems like a reasonable thing to do. But there's a difference between evaluating credibility and using it as a weapon to dodge the argument entirely. A person can have a bias and be presenting solid evidence. A non-expert can stumble onto something true. The argument stands or falls on its own merits — not on who delivered it.

Once you notice this pattern, you'll see it everywhere. In political debates. In media takedowns. In everyday arguments. Whenever the subject shifts from "what was said" to "who said it," someone is avoiding the harder conversation. It's closely related to weaponized labeling — because the fastest way to attack a person is to slap a label on them and walk away.

References