Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
I urge you to read the description of ad hominem that you linked until you’ve actually understood it. In particular, try to comprehend what this says:
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ad hominem would be you making some argument and me attacking your character instead of addressing a point you made. You’ve made no actual point and just used personal attacks, now you’ve found a latin term that sounds clever to you.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
Ad hominem
I urge you to read the description of ad hominem that you linked until you’ve actually understood it. In particular, try to comprehend what this says:
Ad hominem would be you making some argument and me attacking your character instead of addressing a point you made. You’ve made no actual point and just used personal attacks, now you’ve found a latin term that sounds clever to you.
Cherry picking
Feel free to enlighten us what you claim has been cherry picked or what evidence has been suppressed. Be specific.
Sealioning
I submitted the original post and you’ve sealioned into it. Congrats.
“i know your are but what am i?” is not an effective form of argument.
That’s not the argument being made, but I guess it would take basic reading comprehension to understand that.
Ad hominem