A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
Earlier, you said:
If my source was an article from the Assistant Sports Editor of The Podunk Times then I would expect to be questioned and doubted, but this is a well established, highly professional group of wilderness medicine experts, if we don't believe these guys, who can we believe?
You may not like the results, but I've shown you "my" experts and research, I apologize to all the non-poker players, but I'm calling the table, show me what you've got.
I think you're being rather inconsistent here. Earlier, you used the expert status of your source to buttress your argument. Now, when someone questions the credentials of that expert, you claim it's an ad hominem attack. You can't have it both ways.
Previous Topic
Index
