In a discussion, individuals may use personal insults (known as the ad hominem fallacy) as a way to defend themselves psychologically or strategically when their argument is weakening or they feel their sense of self is being challenged.
Using insults as a means of argument is typically viewed as a display of illogical thinking or an inability to manage emotions.
When an individual’s core beliefs or identity are challenged, their brain’s threat system can activate, triggering a fight-or-flight response.
Attacking the opponent is a way to fight back against this perceived psychological threat.
Personal attacks are frequently used as a smoke screen to distract from a lack of facts or evidence.
By shifting the focus to the opponent’s character such as educational qualification or party affiliation, the attacker avoids having to defend their own indefensible points.
In fact, the goal of an ad hominem attack is often to shoot the messenger.
The attacker hopes that if they can make the opponent look bad e.g., calling them a liar or incompetent or creating a lie to castigate the opponent, the audience will stop believing the opponent’s arguments, even if those arguments are factually correct.
Usually, people with lower emotional intelligence may lash out when they feel frustrated, insecure, or unable to articulate their thoughts clearly.
In high-stress debates, the rational part of the brain may shut down, leaving the person at the mercy of their impulses.
Name-calling can be a tool to assert power and control in a relationship or social group.
By belittling an opponent, the attacker tries to create a sense of superiority or raise their own social status by comparison.
Many people resort to insults because they observed this pattern in childhood or within their cultural or political environment, coming to believe it is a normal or effective way to handle conflict.
There are many forms of personal attacks. Let us just mention a few.
First, abusive Ad Hominem directs insults or derogatory remarks intended to provoke or derail.
One example will suffice here. It is fallacious to create a lie that Rick is diaspora running away from a crime he committed in Malawi and therefore all his arguments are unsound and unreasonable.
Second, circumstantial Ad Hominem tries to suggest that an argument is biased or invalid because of the opponent’s personal circumstances or affiliations.
Let’s give an example too. It is fallacious to argue that Rick’s point of view is invalid because he is domiciled in the diaspora.
Tu Quoque also known as Appeal to Hypocrisy) attempts to discredit an argument by pointing out that the opponent does not practice what they preach.
An example is to justify that DPP is condoning corruption because MCP was corrupt too.
Another example, MCP can’t rebuke DPP on corruption because it was corrupt too. This is fallacious too.