appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Source; Meriam Webster.
So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?
If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?
Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.
As Hominem:
Source; Meriam Webster.
So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?
If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?
Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.
Your argument kind of tripped over its own shoelaces there.
Calling someone a liar can be relevant, but only if you prove it with evidence tied to the claim. Otherwise it’s still an ad hominem.
I liked your smug little exit line to dodge pressure. It’s the debate equivalent of throwing a smoke bomb and walking away like you won.