Ad Hominem Arguments¶
Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press.
Cited by¶
6 citations across 6 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Motivated Reasoning
- Treating a motive attribution as a refutation converts a diagnostic tool into an ad hominem, which is a common way it is misused.
This sourceAnalyses the circumstantial and bias forms of ad hominem, in which an arguer's stake is offered in place of an answer to the argument, and sets out when that move is a legitimate credibility challenge rather than a refutation.
- Treating a motive attribution as a refutation converts a diagnostic tool into an ad hominem, which is a common way it is misused.
Domain-specific¶
- Ad Hominem
- These subtypes recur across the standard informal-logic textbooks (Copi, Hurley, Govier), though Walton — whose Ad Hominem Arguments (1998) is the book-length treatment — found in surveying the logic textbooks that their accounts conflict rather than converge, and his own classification adds Bias as a basic type alongside the abusive and circumstantial forms, treating tu quoque and poisoning the well as derivatives of them
This sourceWalton's book-length normative treatment of the personal-attack argument, classifying it into five subtypes — abusive (direct), circumstantial, bias, poisoning the well and tu quoque, the last two derived from the first three — and surveying the logic textbooks in chapter 2, where he finds their accounts of the ad hominem conflict rather than converge. Copi, Hurley and Govier are named from the textbooks themselves, not from Walton. Walton's thesis that no ad hominem argument is inherently fallacious - its legitimacy turns on the argumentative context, including contexts where character and credibility are themselves at issue; the article's specific three-condition test is a restatement, not Walton's own wording. A book-length argumentation-theoretic treatment applying the ad hominem as a diagnostic across political, legal and press discourse; the ranking of ad hominem among the relevance-fallacy literature is the article's own. Walton's legitimacy boundary: no ad hominem argument is inherently fallacious, and whether source-criticism is reasonable depends on the argumentative context, notably where character or credibility is itself the matter in dispute; the three-condition test as worded here is the article's restatement.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- These subtypes recur across the standard informal-logic textbooks (Copi, Hurley, Govier), though Walton — whose Ad Hominem Arguments (1998) is the book-length treatment — found in surveying the logic textbooks that their accounts conflict rather than converge, and his own classification adds Bias as a basic type alongside the abusive and circumstantial forms, treating tu quoque and poisoning the well as derivatives of them
- Bulverism
- Public debate — the live form: "you only think that because you're rich / a man / resentful," the motive-attribution floated in place of engaging the claim and felt by audience and arguer as an answer. Polemic writing — dismissing a body of work by narrating the author's class position, era, or pathology rather than meeting its claims, the origin story standing in for the critique. Online culture-war discourse — the structural template of large fractions of it: identify the opponent's bias, narrate its origin, treat that narration as refutation. Religious and ideological dispute — "you reject the doctrine out of pride / unbelief / false consciousness," explaining the dissent away rather than answering it (the move long predates Lewis's coinage, though the name is his).
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“Byerly (1973, p. 45) classifies ad hominem as a subspecies of genetic fallacy.”
- Public debate — the live form: "you only think that because you're rich / a man / resentful," the motive-attribution floated in place of engaging the claim and felt by audience and arguer as an answer. Polemic writing — dismissing a body of work by narrating the author's class position, era, or pathology rather than meeting its claims, the origin story standing in for the critique. Online culture-war discourse — the structural template of large fractions of it: identify the opponent's bias, narrate its origin, treat that narration as refutation. Religious and ideological dispute — "you reject the doctrine out of pride / unbelief / false consciousness," explaining the dissent away rather than answering it (the move long predates Lewis's coinage, though the name is his).
- Genetic Fallacy
- Origin can be excellent evidence when it predicts what is being evaluated: chain of custody can bear on authenticity; contamination history can bear on measurement reliability; financial dependence can bear on otherwise unverifiable testimony; production process can bear on safety
This sourceWalton's monograph establishes the general point - source- and motive-based argument is defeasible but genuinely probative rather than always fallacious; of the four illustrations only financial dependence, his bias and circumstantial ad hominem material, is drawn from it.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Origin can be excellent evidence when it predicts what is being evaluated: chain of custody can bear on authenticity; contamination history can bear on measurement reliability; financial dependence can bear on otherwise unverifiable testimony; production process can bear on safety
- Guilt by Association
- In informal-logic taxonomies, guilt by association appears as a species of ad hominem (the genus of attacks on the person rather than the argument) and as a species of the genetic fallacy (the genus of judging a claim by its origin), with reductio ad Hitlerum, poisoning the well, and association fallacies generally as sibling or nested variants
This sourceBook treatment that defines the ad hominem argument from guilt by association and sets it beside the genetic fallacy and poisoning the well within the ad-hominem taxonomy.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“various subtypes of the [ad hominem] argument. This new way of defining the [ad hominem] argument and distinguishing”
- In informal-logic taxonomies, guilt by association appears as a species of ad hominem (the genus of attacks on the person rather than the argument) and as a species of the genetic fallacy (the genus of judging a claim by its origin), with reductio ad Hitlerum, poisoning the well, and association fallacies generally as sibling or nested variants
- Tu Quoque
- It is a sub-species of ad hominem: the truth-value of the original accusation is logically independent of the accuser's own conduct, so pointing to parallel guilt in the accuser leaves the substantive claim untouched
This sourceTu quoque ('you too') as one of the recognised subtypes of ad hominem argument. Tu quoque placed in the ad hominem family of argumentation theory, alongside abusive, circumstantial, bias and poisoning-the-well arguments. The smoking-parent case as a paradigm ad hominem example, which Walton treats under circumstantial ad hominem.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- It is a sub-species of ad hominem: the truth-value of the original accusation is logically independent of the accuser's own conduct, so pointing to parallel guilt in the accuser leaves the substantive claim untouched
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 5 of 6 citations: 5 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:c7feea575054 · see in the full table