Logical Fallacy of Argument by Personal Charm / Style over Substance

The logical fallacy of argument by personal charm / style over substance occurs when it is assumed that just because a person is liked or respected, whatever he or she says must be true.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument by Personal Charm / Style over Substance

Article on scienceblogs.com: "During the few moments when we were allowed to see the evangelical audience during Bill Nye’s presentation they looked, frankly, charmed. And how could they not be, Bill Nye is a charming guy!"

It's interesting that a site that claims to deal with facts and science could be so lacking in recognizing this fallacy, along with the many others that Bill Nye presented.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/dawkins-now-convinced-even-if-he-saw-a-miracle-he-wouldnt-believe-in-god/ "For all our criticism of Dr. Dawkins, the man is quite charming. If charm were the sole mechanism for what truths I hold dear, I think I would have become a Dawkinist. I felt somewhat the same way watching Bill Nye and thinking how happy I was to sit in the classroom being taught science by my Darwinists professors. How seductive it is to be deluded to think the human mind can be the salvation for the human soul. I suppose I’m a believer today in ID and God because I came to the realization science and art for all their grandeur and majesty cannot cure the deepest needs of the human soul, and this need began my quest for evidence of God."

This quote tells us how someone avoided being sucked in by personal charm.

Richard Dawkins on Christopher Hitchens: "I admired him enormously. I think he was probably the best orator I’ve ever heard. He was a stunning public speaker. Beautifully modulated, he was extremely quick on his feet, extremely well read, erudite, resourceful and charming at the same time. So he was an enormous loss."

Note that there is nothing about the substance of what Christopher Hitchens preached. It is all about his speaking ability and charm.