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