The most common form of this fallacy is “A” makes a claim of “fact,” to which “B” asserts that “A” has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence “B” concludes that “A” has their “fact” wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate.
I fulfilled one part of an ad hominem—I asserted (implied, but whatever) that you have a personal trait, quality, or physical attribute. This is not enough to accuse me of committing ad hominem, because I fulfilled no other portions of it. I never implied that the fact that you are relatively young is a negative trait, I never concluded that you were wrong because of it, and I did address the main point of the debate. Calling someone young or stupid or naive isn’t ad hominem if I then go on to explain why what they’re saying is incorrect.
![Accelerationist [RULE]](https://files.catbox.moe/052f42.jpeg){kind=link}
Never attacked your identity lmao
that’s exactly what an ad hominem is
To quote Wikipedia:
I fulfilled one part of an ad hominem—I asserted (implied, but whatever) that you have a personal trait, quality, or physical attribute. This is not enough to accuse me of committing ad hominem, because I fulfilled no other portions of it. I never implied that the fact that you are relatively young is a negative trait, I never concluded that you were wrong because of it, and I did address the main point of the debate. Calling someone young or stupid or naive isn’t ad hominem if I then go on to explain why what they’re saying is incorrect.
your explanation didnt prove me incorrect. but you did insult me at least three times already.
Insults aren’t ad hominem dummy
And I never did that either lmao