Explanation
The rebuttal of an objection by pointing out that the person making the criticism is acting inconsistently. In the atlas, the term is not treated in isolation: it supplements “Ad hominem” with a common subtype. This highlights the distinction the form enables and how it relates to related phenomena.
Example
You can’t call for energy conservation—you flew yesterday.
Counterexample
Demonstrating a factually relevant inconsistency can be significant in an argument.
Distinction
Demonstrating a factually relevant inconsistency can be significant in an argument.
Effect on thought and perception
The term draws attention to the fact that “ad hominem” is supplemented by a common subtype. What previously appeared to be a uniform process becomes perceptible as a structured relationship.
Resonance
Resonance arises when the tu quoque argument is not merely named but experienced as a dynamic interplay between form, expectation, and effect.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Tu quoque argument“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-088-024. ATLAS 251, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-088-024The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. A verified modification date per entry is not yet available. Include your access date for precise references.