Editing Ad hominem (section)

== Use in debates==
{{lang|la|Ad hominem}} fallacies are considered to be uncivil and do not help creating a constructive atmosphere for dialogue to flourish.{{sfn|Weston|2018|p=82}} An {{lang|la|ad hominem}} attack is an attack on the character of the target who tends to feel the necessity to defend himself or herself from the accusation of being hypocritical. Walton has noted that it is so powerful of an argument that it is employed in many political debates. Since it is associated with negativity and dirty tricks, it has gained a bad fame, of being always fallacious.{{sfn|Walton|2006|p=122}}

Author Eithan Orkibi, having studied Israeli politics prior to elections, described two other forms of {{lang|la|ad hominem}} attacks that are common during election periods. They both depend on the [[collective memory]] shared by both proponents and the audience. The first is the "precedent {{lang|la|ad hominem}}", according to which the previous history of someone means that they do not fit for the office. It goes like this: "My opponent was (allegedly) wrong in the past, therefore he is wrong now". The second one is a behavioral {{lang|la|ad hominem}}: "my opponent was not decent in his arguments in the past, so he is not now either". These kinds of attacks are based on the inability of the audience to have a clear view of the amount of false statements by both parts of the debate.{{sfn|Orkibi|2018|pp=497–498}}