Just what is an ad hominum attack? What is that supposed to mean?

Let's say you and I are debating the best fudge brownie recipe.

You say: "The kind with chocolate chips and peanut butter is the best."

I say: "You couldn't possibly know good fudge. You do massage for a living. As if." 

That really makes no sense. lol But, my response was about you and whether you could judge good fudge, not what actually makes good fudge. I tried to debunk you, not your argument. You could replace the "You do massage" part with a reference to a political party, religion, race, etc... those are the kinds of things people go after the most, but not usually while they're discussing fudge. 

The term is argumentum ad hominem (Latin: 'to the man'), and it generally refers to the logical fallacy of personally attacking an opponent as opposed to his or her ideas or premises.  For example, if I say:

"Barack Obama has set race relations back 20 years"

And you respond with:

"Oh, yeah?  Well, you're a racist."

You're guilty of argumentum ad hominem.  In formal debate, you would have lost on this ground alone.

FYI, with a little experience you can spot ad hominem pretty easily.  A statement containing argumentum ad hominem is usually prefaced with the phrases "you are...," "so, you...," etc.   If your opponent makes a discussion of anything OTHER than you ABOUT you, then s/he is guilty of ad hominem.

Great question, though.

LOL!  Precisely.

A commonly used logical fallacy by those who have no substantial means of countering the argument at hand, therefore they instead attack the character of the one making the argument. It's a fallacy because the argument's validity does not rest upon the debater's character. It's a way to distract from the argument and draw attention away from the fact that you have nothing valid to say in rebuttal. Often when an argument gets too heated, it "devolves into ad hominem" whereby both participants are no longer debating a claim; they are simply insulting each other.

*like*

Correct on all points.

Google "Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies." :-)

That means you can't refute someone's logic so you challenge their qualification to hold any opinion at all. A very subtle form of attack is "What are your sources?" As if to say that your opinion is meaningless unless you got it from some respected person or institution.

It's when someone smokes to much pot and gets weird! Lol. You go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suppose you were in a debate and your role was to put forth all the proof in logic and evidence that favoured your position.

To argue well, your opponent may attack your ideas by pointing out the flaws in your logic, by proving that your evidence is wrong due to specific failures in research method, statistics or analysis, or by explaining an alternative argument.

But if your opponent attacks you for being illogical or a poor researcher (with or without stating the reason why,) or even attacks you for some completely irrelevant reason in order to cast doubt on your fitness to argue or present a point of view - that attack is called ad hominem.  ad = "to" + hominem " the man" or "the person". Hence an attack on the man or the arguer as opposed an attack on the premises (reasons) of an argument.

If you are the one being accused of an ad hominem, it means to have attacked the arguer, not the argument.

Its used in politics a great deal.

Some people do it here when they don't like the view a person is expressing.

The important point is, that to defeat an argument one must undermine the premises upon which it is based. Or propose a better idea.

Or one can simply disagree and state one's point of view, without trying to make the other's view wrong - which is what I personally prefer - with rare exceptions.

There are ten kinds of fallacys (error) in logic, each of which causes an argument to be logically false.

Ad hominem is only one of them.

I liked JA's, Nimitz', Nevan's and Vern's answers better. Simpler and more succinct than mine.

We do see them here, a lot... All depending on the topics discussed. :-/

I'm fairly convinced you know what it means my friend. You're too smart not to.

Ultracrepidarian, somebody who gives opinions on matters beyond his knowledge, comes from a classical allusion. The Latin writer Pliny recorded that Apelles, the famous Greek painter who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, would put his pictures where the public could see them and then stand out of sight so he could listen to their comments. A shoemaker once faulted the painter for a sandal with one loop too few, which Apelles corrected. The shoemaker, emboldened by this acceptance of his views, then criticised the subject’s leg. To this Apelles is reported as replying (no doubt with expletives deleted) that the shoemaker should not judge beyond his sandals, in other words that critics should only comment on matters they know something about.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-ult1.htm

Ad Hominums were a distant ancestor to humans. It means someone is one step below a Neanderthal when they talk.

It's corn dish created by the Mayans in Southern Mexico and Guatemala from 1500-1200 BC.

It was later to be known as ad hominus then ad hominy.  The 'ad' was dropped around the turn of the 16th century. 

It means attacking a speaker rather than attacking his/her message.

That's pretty good.  Thanks.  You just described me to a T. 

I am an ad hominum.

It sounds like both of us. 

It just means "to the man". A personal attack. Often confused with the ad hominem fallacy, whereby someone tries to invalidate an argument by personally attacking the arguer.

hart, succinct is not your style.  But that's not a bad thing either. 

Love your example JA. Hello...I'm back for now! lol  Been going to physical therapy to prevent knee surgery. UGH!

I might be the definition.

You are ad hominuming me

But I do need to learn.

And i reckon Harry's right.