Ad Hominem
An ad hominem attack targets the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. Debaters answer by pointing out that the speaker's character or circumstances do not make the claim false, and bring the discussion back to the reasoning.
Ad Hominem as it appears in championship debate rounds. Each example below is a moment from a real round, with a note on why it illustrates the technique and how a debater can use it, or answer it.
Example 1: The coach presents the commodification argument against discourse-based roles of the ballot
Rewarding talk incentivizes people who don't care to cynically appropriate the issue. He explicitly warns that accusing the opposing team itself of commodifying would be an ad hominem, since they may be personally affected. Aim the argument at the incentive structure of the role of the ballot, not at the opponents' motives; that keeps it a legitimate argument rather than a personal attack.
Example 2: The affirmative ends its answer to the Heidegger argument with 'Heidegger was a Nazi' and calls him anthropocentric
That attacks the source instead of the argument's reasoning, which is an ad hominem (or genetic) fallacy committed by the speaker. The negative calls it out later (segments 327-328): 'don't reject a good argument just because' of who advocates it. Students should avoid this move and, when it is used against them, name it briefly and redirect to the argument's warrants.
Example 3
The negative defends its no-warming evidence by pointing out that the affirmative's attack targets the author's funding rather than his reasoning. 'Everyone gets their own funding from somewhere; they need an indict to Zycher's science, not Zycher himself.' This exposes the source attack as ad hominem. It also flags the aff's indict as biased, since it comes from the IPCC, the body Zycher criticizes. Use this move when opponents dismiss your evidence because of who wrote it: insist they engage the warrants.
Example 4
The negative attacks the MLK contention by pointing to King's infidelity to his wife, which targets the person's character rather than his reasoning on speech codes. This is a classic ad hominem against a source. The affirmative later answers that personal and public moral spheres are different, which is the standard counter: separate the argument from the arguer's private conduct.
Example 5: The affirmative answers the 2NC's line 'but you're white Dylan,' an attack on the speaker's identity rather than the argument
He reframes the debate as a question of competing models of debate, so his race does not decide whether the interpretation is good. This shows how to defuse a personal attack by pulling the judge back to the argument. When you face this kind of move, name it, refuse it, and redirect to what the ballot actually evaluates.
Example 6
The affirmative dismisses the trade-off argument about Clinton's baby-bond proposal by saying Clinton 'will literally say anything to get elected.' That attacks the person's motives rather than whether the policies actually trade off, so the speaker commits ad hominem. Students facing this should point out that a source's motives do not change the logic of the trade-off and press for a substantive answer.
Example 7
After pressing the affirmative on which party they endorse, the negative jumps to personal attacks: 'this is why we can't trust you' and 'this is why you're probably not a socialist.' That shifts the target from the argument to the debaters' identity and credibility, which is an ad hominem. The underlying question about fiating a party was a legitimate solvency challenge. Students should make that substantive point instead of attacking the person, and when targeted, steer back to the argument calmly.
Example 8: The 2AR attacks the negative's authors rather than their arguments
It speculates that Patrice Douglass would dislike Wilderson because of his personal life and calls another theorist misogynistic. This is ad hominem: an author's private choices or character don't refute the warrants in the evidence. If an opponent does this to you, point out that they have not engaged your card's reasoning and ask the judge to give the attack no weight.
Sources: every example links to the YouTube video of the championship debate it comes from, at the moment described.
All techniques and fallacies