Is the ad hominen fallacy a valid counter argument? In cases

FUk you guys

>>8925549
Man, for real, fuck you, you niggers, you don't know SHIT

Yeah, m8, it's just called a fallacy for no reason.

>>8925669
You're a condescending, useless fuckface

>>8925549
has some shithead deleted fallacy fallacy off those lists again? the ad hominem fallacy is an error of means, and so it can be right but still invalid as an argument, depending on the standards for an argument's means in a debate.
>tl;dr- if you think you can make them cry without getting arrested, it's totally fair game

>>8925581
>>8925662
>>8925707
predictable

>>8925926
you don't know me

No one on 4chan actually knows what an ad hominem is

>>8925549
No it's definitely NOT a valid argument.
But then again, it just works.
Use it if you're willing to be a little bitch.

>>8926421
How do you know?

>>8925549
The kind of ad hominem that may be valid is where you call out hypocrisy. While it doesn't follow that their claim is wrong, it would seem they lack faith in their own claim and as such aren't honest on some level. As an example, if someone argues for public schooling being really good and nobody should be held back by going but went or sends their own children to a private school, pointing out that they don't follow their own advice and that this negates their claim is an ad hominem.

File: 1482086263834.jpg (114KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 640x640px

invalid:
>Your argument is untrue because of qualities about you
valid
>with limited information, we can reasonably choose not to buy your argument because of qualities about you
/thread