When you are too stupid to accept logic

By Dr. Anton Anderssen

In today’s intellectually challenged climate, it is disheartening to observe how many individuals refuse to engage with arguments on their merits. Instead of wrestling with evidence and reason, some resort to dismissiveness and nasty personal attacks—revealing, perhaps, that they are too intellectually deficient to meet the challenge of genuine discourse (Copi 102). Rather than embracing the rigors of logical debate, these individuals cloak their inability to argue in reasoned ways with snide remarks and unfounded insults, thereby missing the true purpose of critical thinking.

At its core, a robust argument demands that ideas be assessed by their supporting evidence and logical structure—not by the perceived origins of their expression. Dismissing an argument because it is allegedly generated / enhanced / grammar checked / polished by an artificial intelligence like ChatGPT or Grammarly is a prime example of the ad hominem fallacy, where the attack is aimed at the messenger rather than the message (Aristotle 78). In doing so, the critic forfeits the opportunity to scrutinize the actual content of the argument, preferring instead to hide behind a veneer of cynicism and disdain for any notion that challenges their unreasoning worldview.

It is a sad truth that some people are so intellectually impoverished that they cannot muster a coherent argument on their own. When confronted with a well-reasoned position, they often revert to personal insults, revealing more about their own limitations than about the argument at hand (Johnson 56). This tendency to default to nastiness is not only a failure of logical engagement but also an admission of a fundamental inability to participate in meaningful dialogue. Instead of seeking to understand or refute the evidence presented, these individuals choose the easier path of deriding the source—an approach that ultimately undermines the quality of public discourse.

Moreover, the advent of advanced tools like Grammarly or ChatGPT should inspire us to focus on the substance of ideas rather than the medium through which they are conveyed. Advanced technological aids, when used correctly, can augment human reasoning by providing clarity and coherence to complex arguments (Greene 89). However, the refusal to accept such contributions—simply because the human used a a non-human entity as a tool—demonstrates a narrow-mindedness that borders on intellectual laziness. Critics who dismiss ideas based solely on their origin reveal an underlying contempt for logic, preferring to remain ensconced in their own flawed reasoning.

The merits of an argument—its evidential support, logical coherence, and clarity—must always be the focus of evaluation. Dismissing an argument merely because an AI, like ChatGPT enhanced or polished the argument, is not only an ad hominem fallacy but also a reflection of a deeper inability to engage with reasoned debate. While it is unfortunate that some individuals are too intellectually challenged to argue on a logical basis and thus resort to nasty, personal attacks, it remains our collective responsibility to champion critical thinking and to value arguments for the strength of their content, rather than the source of their delivery (Aristotle 85; Copi 110).

Works Cited

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, Dover Publications, 2004.

Copi, Irving, et al. Introduction to Logic. 14th ed., Routledge, 2019.

Greene, Brian. Evaluating Modern Arguments: The Intersection of Logic and Technology. Academic Press, 2021.

Johnson, Emily. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Reasoning. Oxford University Press, 2020.