It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Source; Meriam Webster.
So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?
If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?
Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
“It’s not an ad hominem”
“My argument can no longer be againt the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally”
That is the literal definition of ad hominem. You just contradicted yourself. Well done.
As Hominem:
Source; Meriam Webster.
So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?
If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?
Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.
Your argument kind of tripped over its own shoelaces there.
Calling someone a liar can be relevant, but only if you prove it with evidence tied to the claim. Otherwise it’s still an ad hominem.
I liked your smug little exit line to dodge pressure. It’s the debate equivalent of throwing a smoke bomb and walking away like you won.