When we disagree with someone, often it’s easier to try and discredit the person or to manipulate their argument in order to make it weaker and easier to attack. Generally, this occurs by attacking the person themselves, rather than attacking the content of the argument.
The below are common approaches that this can take:
Ignoring the argument itself and attacking the person making the claim.
Example: “Anyone who wants to leave the EU is just a racist.”
Circumstance Ad Hominem
Saying that a claim has no credibility because of the person’s own interest in the claim.
Example: “This study on the cancer-beating properties of cannabis was funded by the pharmaceutical companies and so can’t be trusted..”
Guilt By Association
Ignoring or discrediting a claim or an idea by associating it with an undesirable group.
Example: “So if you think that The Patriot Act is inhumane, does that mean you support terrorism?”
Attacking a claim’s cause or origin rather than it’s content.
Example: “Are you surprised that the rich don’t complain that tax havens are unfair?”
Exaggerating, distorting or overly simplifying a claim and then arguing against the manipulated claim.
Example: “You think that Syrians shouldn’t escape to the EU, so you’re saying that Syrians don’t deserve to live in the EU, that they’re lesser than you?”
Burden of Proof
Rather than trying to prove your claim, you expect the other person to prove your claim to be false.
Example: “God exists, if you can’t prove me wrong, then am right.”