if you mean the first response you are partially right, it was somewhat reductive and nonchalant of me but it was also the only ad hominem i used, there is no ad hominem in my second comment. Unless you consider personal insults that are made in a side discourse that are not meant to be relevant in the argument itself to be ad hominem, which they aren't; they're completely separate from the arguments, as the arguments could perfectly exist without them, and i simply added them because of... let's say... personal preference , for flavour . Can the same be said about the clear majority of the arguments made by each and every one of the people that responded to me until now? Those are the core of their arguments and everything else is based upon them... Of course this can make sense to you only if you know what ''ad hominem''(i think that even the definition on wikipedia would be more adequated than mere hearsay... if not, wikipedia provides its sources) means and are able to analyze the comments properly. If you instead insist on stating that i am the one to use fallacious arguments, could you please specify them for the sake of transparency? Of course i'm not pretending anything, consider it a friendly request.