Opinion / Columnist
The ad hominem fallacy in the debate on Constitution Amendments
2 hrs ago |
136 Views
BEWARE OF THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY IN THE DEBATE ON CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS, 2026: Scoundrels, charlatans and misfits of society respond to SPEECH whose logic and facts they cannot disprove or match by DEMONISING and BESMIRCHING the SPEAKER.
An ad hominem fallacy, from the Latin phrase meaning "to the person," occurs in arguments when someone attacks the character, motives, personal traits or situation of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the substance or merits of the argument itself.
The purpose of the tactic is to divert attention from the actual issue, without engaging the argument's evidence or logic. The personal attack doesn't refute the point being made. An example of this is when an academic trained at the highest level and published in economics, Professor Gift Mugano, was mocked and demonised - by social media malcontents who could not engage the data and methodology involved - for technically highlighting the announcement by Zimbabwe Treasury and The Reserve Bank Zimbabwe that January 2026 marked the first single-digit annual inflation rate in the ZiG currency in over three decades - a transformative 4.1% year-on-year drop that signals significant economic revival in the country.
The mockery and demonisation to which Prof Mugano was subjected is called an ad hominem fallacy, to describe the fact that it fails to provide a substantive, technical and logical rebuttal. It is trite that sound arguments should stand or fall on their own evidence, not on who presents them. Relying on ad hominem fallacy in lieu of insightful commentary demonstrates one's intellectual poverty, as it avoids substantive and informing debate.
There are three common types of ad hominem fallacies, especially on social media platforms, such as these streets. One is "abusive ad hominem", which uses direct insults, for example, "You're a mercenary, so your evidence or analysis is worthless."
Another type is "circumstantial ad hominem", which involves attacking a person based on his or her social situation or affiliations, for example, "of course you'd say that - you are Zanu-PF."
There's yet another type best described as, "tu quoque ad hominem" (you too) based on purporting to point out one's hypocrisy, for example, "you are supporting the proposed constitution amendments today, but in 2018 you criticised President Mnangagwa and called him unelectable," which doesn't address the substance and merits of the amendments.
This third type of ad hominem fallacy is particularly rampant here on "X", where some TL Scavengers, who scavenge posts or tweets from a donkey's years ago and use them with reckless abandon as their only "data" - without context or relevance—against speakers whose speech, on a current and topical issue, they cannot competently engage or challenge with substance, logic and facts!
An ad hominem fallacy, from the Latin phrase meaning "to the person," occurs in arguments when someone attacks the character, motives, personal traits or situation of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the substance or merits of the argument itself.
The purpose of the tactic is to divert attention from the actual issue, without engaging the argument's evidence or logic. The personal attack doesn't refute the point being made. An example of this is when an academic trained at the highest level and published in economics, Professor Gift Mugano, was mocked and demonised - by social media malcontents who could not engage the data and methodology involved - for technically highlighting the announcement by Zimbabwe Treasury and The Reserve Bank Zimbabwe that January 2026 marked the first single-digit annual inflation rate in the ZiG currency in over three decades - a transformative 4.1% year-on-year drop that signals significant economic revival in the country.
The mockery and demonisation to which Prof Mugano was subjected is called an ad hominem fallacy, to describe the fact that it fails to provide a substantive, technical and logical rebuttal. It is trite that sound arguments should stand or fall on their own evidence, not on who presents them. Relying on ad hominem fallacy in lieu of insightful commentary demonstrates one's intellectual poverty, as it avoids substantive and informing debate.
There are three common types of ad hominem fallacies, especially on social media platforms, such as these streets. One is "abusive ad hominem", which uses direct insults, for example, "You're a mercenary, so your evidence or analysis is worthless."
Another type is "circumstantial ad hominem", which involves attacking a person based on his or her social situation or affiliations, for example, "of course you'd say that - you are Zanu-PF."
There's yet another type best described as, "tu quoque ad hominem" (you too) based on purporting to point out one's hypocrisy, for example, "you are supporting the proposed constitution amendments today, but in 2018 you criticised President Mnangagwa and called him unelectable," which doesn't address the substance and merits of the amendments.
This third type of ad hominem fallacy is particularly rampant here on "X", where some TL Scavengers, who scavenge posts or tweets from a donkey's years ago and use them with reckless abandon as their only "data" - without context or relevance—against speakers whose speech, on a current and topical issue, they cannot competently engage or challenge with substance, logic and facts!
Source - x
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
