Ad Hominem Debates

Users accuse each other of ad hominem attacks, debate the definition of the logical fallacy, and reference Wikipedia while urging substantive arguments instead.

📉 Falling 0.4x Other
4,598
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#8393
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
13
2008
73
2009
110
2010
153
2011
184
2012
247
2013
378
2014
198
2015
213
2016
268
2017
269
2018
217
2019
269
2020
291
2021
368
2022
403
2023
395
2024
236
2025
297
2026
16

Keywords

HN WEF en.m guscost.com columbia.edu wikipedia.org ad hominem hominem ad argument attack attacking logical attacks disprove comment

Sample Comments

bduerst Oct 31, 2012 View on HN

You're making an ad-hom attack for making ad-hom attacks?

eru Dec 9, 2010 View on HN

That's ad hominem, now. (Though understandable.)

TT3351 Dec 7, 2020 View on HN

I fail to see how this is an ad hominem, can you please explain?

kazagistar Aug 25, 2016 View on HN

That is not a counterargument, it is an ad hominem.

sz4kerto Nov 7, 2013 View on HN

This argument is called 'ad hominem'. Does not matter who posted it -- it definitely happened.

mooism2 Jun 9, 2013 View on HN

You're making an ad hominem attack. A list of substantive errors and inaccuracies in the article would be more convincing.

rorrr2 Jul 29, 2013 View on HN

That's not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem is "You're an idiot, therefore what you said is incorrect".

guelo Aug 15, 2019 View on HN

That is pure ad-hominem. You are not engaging with the argument being made, you are attacking it solely based on who is making it.

xandrius Dec 16, 2025 View on HN

This is an ad-hominem attack, not cool.

elsewhen Oct 17, 2019 View on HN

I believe your post is an ad hominemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem