LogicalMANIPULATIVE

Tu Quoque

What it is

Deflecting criticism by pointing out that the critic has done the same thing, without actually addressing whether the criticism is valid.

How it works

Latin for "you too," this fallacy avoids defending against an accusation by attacking the accuser's consistency. Even if the accuser is hypocritical, that doesn't make their criticism wrong. But the emotional appeal of calling out hypocrisy is strong enough to derail conversations from the original issue.

Real-world examples

  • •A politician accused of corruption responding with "My opponent did the same thing" without addressing the charges.
  • •A company accused of pollution pointing to competitors who also pollute rather than addressing their own practices.
  • •A person confronted about lying responding "You've lied too" rather than addressing the specific lie.

Ethical guidelines

  • ●Hypocrisy in the accuser does not invalidate a legitimate criticism.
  • ●Addressing the substance of criticism is more productive than deflecting to the critic's behavior.
  • ●Using tu quoque habitually prevents any accountability from taking hold.

How to defend against it

  • ►When someone responds with "you too," redirect: "We can discuss that separately, but right now the question is..."
  • ►Recognize that the critic's behavior and the validity of the criticism are separate questions.
  • ►Don't let the conversation shift away from the original substantive issue.

From the Defense Playbook

Note and Returnseconds

When a new topic is introduced in the middle of an unresolved one, acknowledge it, write it down as something to come back to, and return to the original point, so that diversions neither derail the discussion nor go unanswered.

Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.

References

  1. Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press
    Classifies tu quoque as a subtype of ad hominem and analyses when replying 'you too' is fallacious: it attacks the accuser's consistency instead of the accusation — the entry's definition.
  2. Aikin, S. F. (2008). Tu quoque arguments and the significance of hypocrisy. Informal Logic, 28(2), 155–169
    Explains why exposing hypocrisy is rhetorically powerful yet does not show the criticism is wrong — the entry's claim that a hypocritical accuser can still be correct.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Tu Quoque in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Tu Quoque or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account