Debate Now Okay, let's talk about ad hominem.

[Foxfyre]

Ad hominem can absolutely apply to third parties when it is used to undermine the argument we are making. 'You are an idiot' is ad hominem only if it is used to undermine the argument, i.e. "Only an idiot could believe that. . . ." That could apply to you personally, if pertinent, or it could apply to the person you are quoting. Either way it is ad hominem.

Usually when somebody calls you an idiot, that is not ad hominem but is a direct personal insult.

But write your own definition for ad hominem if you don't like the one I provided in the OP. I am not interested in the shortened dictionary definitions that don't provide adequate examples of the ways ad hominem is used on a message board.

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

 

[Foxfyre]

An ad hominem fallacy is to attack the individual making the argument, not the argument itself; by vilifying the advocate of the argument, the attacker hopes to dissuade others from considering an otherwise valid argument. Indeed, the attacker likely realizes that his opponent’s argument is valid and he has no way to win the debate.

A better question would be, does the following exchange qualify as an ad hominem fallacy:

Argument being made: “Blacks are not human and should be shot on sight”

Response: “You're a racist pig.”

Is the response an ad hominem fallacy, can the fallacy occur if the original premise of the argument is not valid, that blacks are not human, and must one be compelled to engage in good faith in a debate when the premise of the argument is so comprehensively flawed?

And here we have sort of a straw man argument don't we? Arguing as to when one must be compelled to engage in a good faith debate is a different topic than what ad hominem is. So let's set that aside--perhaps a different thread to address it?--and address the thread topic here please.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

 

[Pogo]

Awright.
From various sources:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-- Nizkor

____________________

"Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument" -- Yourlogicalfallacyis.com

____________________

... a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. -- logicalfallacies.info

_____________________

the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. --- Wiki

_____________________

--- all of these definitions fit my ideas above. What you have in the OP is unusually broad. In fact in all the times I've navigated the above and other sites for logical direction, I've never even come across it. So I think it's an outlier.

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

 

[Pogo]

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

 

[Foxfyre]

In short, you have refuted your own argument here and have supported mine.

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and, if you are arguing they were not 'cherry picked' to support the argument given, how did you determine that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

Look at Example #10 in the poll options. That is ad hominem.
A personal insult is to say "You're a liar."

And a straw man is to conclude that #10 is the same thing as saying "You're a liar."

 

[Pogo]

Danth's Law! ^^

No, I discredited your source. Four times. Hard to see how you can come out with the opposite of what it says.

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and was not also selected to support the argument given?

That's not ad hom in any way shape or form (!) -- that's an observation of a fallacy.

To include an ad hom I would have had to add, again just an example, "Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking) because you're an idiot".

 

[Pogo]

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

Look at Example #10 in the poll options. That is ad hominem.
A personal insult is to say "You're a liar."

Yes it is, agreed.

But that's not what #10 says; it describes an act. If "you" actually did lie in that case, then it's a simple statement of fact.

The predicate adjective makes all the difference.

"You lied" -- describes an action in the past (whether true or not);
"You're a liar" describes a personal trait.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. If you want your opinion to be regarded as clearly discrediting my source, you're going to have to show how it is sustantially different than the definition I used. And if you can do that, you will have to show why your source is more credible than mine.

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and was not also selected to support the argument given?

That's not ad hom in any way shape or form (!) -- that's an observation of a fallacy.

To include an ad hom I would have had to add, again just an example, "Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking) because you're an idiot".

Nope. To make that statement non ad hominem it would go something like "your definition supports your argument but is not credible on the strength of that alone as everybody else has offered different definitions that are much less broad." And you wouldn't have accused me of cherrypicking that definition. See? Of course, I would have countered with show me how my definition is less credible than everybody elses. And I'm going to guess you wouldn't be able to do that. And so we're back to square one.

I am perfectly agreeable to persons challenging that definition and offering their own. But I will challenge them to defend their challenge.

Off topic: Hombre is hungry so I'm off to make open face enchiladas. I shall return however.

 

[Wry Catcher]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

 

[Pogo]

I quoted the almighty Wiki. Wiki never lies.

Argumentum ad Humorum ^^

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and was not also selected to support the argument given?

That's not ad hom in any way shape or form (!) -- that's an observation of a fallacy.

To include an ad hom I would have had to add, again just an example, "Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking) because you're an idiot".

Nope. To make that statement non ad hominem it would go something like "your definition supports your argument but is not credible on the strength of that alone as everybody else has offered different definitions that are much less broad." And you wouldn't have accused me of cherrypicking that definition. See? Of course, I would have countered with show me how my definition is less credible than everybody elses. And I'm going to guess you wouldn't be able to do that. And so we're back to square one.

OK, let's break it down "mathematically".
I analyzed that you went with an outlier definition, overly broad outside the accepted one, and did so selectively in order to drive your point where you wanted it to go.

Do I know that causation to be true? No I do not. It's speculation on my part.

That's why I said "I think". That's what keeps it from being an "accusation". It's kind of an insurance policy.

But I am perfectly agreeable to persons challenging that definition and offering their own. But I will challenge them to defend their challenge.

Off topic: Hombre is hungry so I'm off to make open face enchiladas. I shall return however.

What a great idea. Everybody to Foxy's hacienda por las enchiladas. pronto.

I've got stuff I'm supposed to be doing as well. Keeps getting interrupted by SWI -- Somebody Wrong on the Internet..
You know how it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

Look at Example #10 in the poll options. That is ad hominem.
A personal insult is to say "You're a liar."

Yes it is, agreed.

But that's not what #10 says; it describes an act. If "you" actually did lie in that case, then it's a simple statement of fact.

The predicate adjective makes all the difference.

"You lied" -- describes an action in the past (whether true or not);
"You're a liar" describes a personal trait.

Unless you have evidence that the person making the statement intentionally stated what he knew was a falsehood, it is drawing a personal assumption about him that is not in evidence. That is why saying "You lied about XXX" is ad hominem. You can say that whatever about XXX is a lie and that is not ad hominem. But when the statement suggests that the person intentionally lied, when you cannot show that he/she did, that is ad hominem.

And I really am off now. . . .

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. 0.0%
2. 
   4. You don't want to help the poor.
   2 vote(s)
   66.7%
3. 
   5. Didn't you say you opposed gay marriage?
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
4. *
   6. Why do you hate gays?
   3 vote(s)
   100.0%
5. 
   7. All the Democrats supported that program.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
6. 
   8. Democrats love big government.
   2 vote(s)
   66.7%
7. 
   9. You didn't make a case for XXX.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
8. 
   10. You lied about XXX.

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

One X?

 

[Foxfyre]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. Okay I will accept the argumentum ad Humorum along with kudos for at least making an argument. But I'm afraid that I can't agree that you 'clearly' discredited my source. But if enough people are actually interested in the topic, we'll know soon enough if anybody has a better argument for the topic than my source.

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and was not also selected to support the argument given?

That's not ad hom in any way shape or form (!) -- that's an observation of a fallacy.

To include an ad hom I would have had to add, again just an example, "Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking) because you're an idiot".

Nope. To make that statement non ad hominem it would go something like "your definition supports your argument but is not credible on the strength of that alone as everybody else has offered different definitions that are much less broad." And you wouldn't have accused me of cherrypicking that definition. See? Of course, I would have countered with show me how my definition is less credible than everybody elses. And I'm going to guess you wouldn't be able to do that. And so we're back to square one.

OK, let's break it down "mathematically".
I analyzed that you went with an outlier definition, overly broad outside the accepted one, and did so selectively in order to drive your point where you wanted it to go.

Do I know that causation to be true? No I do not. It's speculation on my part.

That's why I said "I think". That's what keeps it from being an "accusation". It's kind of an insurance policy.

But I am perfectly agreeable to persons challenging that definition and offering their own. But I will challenge them to defend their challenge.

Off topic: Hombre is hungry so I'm off to make open face enchiladas. I shall return however.

What a great idea. Everybody to Foxy's hacienda por las enchiladas. pronto.

I've got stuff I'm supposed to be doing as well. Keeps getting interrupted by SWI -- Somebody Wrong on the Internet..
You know how it is.

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

Look at Example #10 in the poll options. That is ad hominem.
A personal insult is to say "You're a liar."

Yes it is, agreed.

But that's not what #10 says; it describes an act. If "you" actually did lie in that case, then it's a simple statement of fact.

The predicate adjective makes all the difference.

"You lied" -- describes an action in the past (whether true or not);
"You're a liar" describes a personal trait.

#10 is a direct attack on a person in almost every circumstance a person can conceive most especially in cases where the topic is subjective. It is a favorite ploy of trolls and thread derailers who instead of declaring your post wrong, they say you lied about it. Unless you have evidence that the person knows the truth and intentionally lied, the statement is ad hom because it draws a conclusion about the character of the person.

 

[Statistikhengst]

1. 0.0%
2. 
   4. You don't want to help the poor.
   2 vote(s)
   66.7%
3. 
   5. Didn't you say you opposed gay marriage?
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
4. *
   6. Why do you hate gays?
   3 vote(s)
   100.0%
5. 
   7. All the Democrats supported that program.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
6. 
   8. Democrats love big government.
   2 vote(s)
   66.7%
7. 
   9. You didn't make a case for XXX.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
8. 
   10. You lied about XXX.

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

One X?

Yes!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Wry Catcher]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...