Ad hominem is a logical fallacy

The ancient Greeks were well known for practicing the act of pederasty. They also believed in false gods and mythological tales that are quite obviously not possible in real life and defied logic. How is it then that such an insane and debased group of people have any say in what is "logical" or not? Why should we listen to anything that comes from a barbarous time in history where people assumed that it was okay for adults to make love to children? To even think they knew anything about what should be deemed "logical" or not is simply preposterous.

And aside from the historical aspects of where the whole "ad hominem fallacy" comes from, the concept itself is absurd. Say if a man who has been convicted of murder says that it is wrong to murder people. Should we just take his advice the same way we would as a person who has been known to be a morally upstanding person? Because, if you ask me, that right there is the fallacy. I think not taking into consideration where a person is coming from when he or she is saying something is far more fallacious than the so called "ad hominem fallacy" could ever be.

Every example that my opponent provided in his R1 were pretty much Ad Hominem's all over. He isn't proving how Ad Hominem isn't a logical fallacy; he's just giving examples of what an Ad Hominem is: "since source X has problems Y and Z, we cannot trust what source X says" - which is almost the same definition provided by Wikipedia. However, this does not in any way show how Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy.

Because it is generally accepted that Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy and also because he made the claim that Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that it is not a logical fallacy. Since he has not done anything to show that his position is true, you currently default vote for PRO.

Before I go any further, I would like to ask my opponent what his IQ is. From his avatar, I can see that he is a fan of Japanese anime which makes me question his credibility or even his sanity. Why? Well, I don't need to really elaborate on that. Look up anime or even Japanese culture on the internet and you'll be greeted with sick, gruesome things and concepts such as "tentacle rape" and other things that I do not even want to talk about.

I think from that alone it is clear that my opponent lacks the credibility to be participating in this argument and would probably be better suited to being contained somewhere such as a mental health facility rather than here on the internet.

But in any case, I may be mistaken so if you could please tell me what your IQ is and prove your credibility (and reason anyone should take anything you are saying without a grain of salt), I will gladly continue this debate further.

Well, I did as my opponent requested and took the test. I looked up IQ test on Facebook, since he didn't specify any test in particular. The one I took says I'm a 138, but I assume it's higher since I waited out the five or so minutes near the end. Forgot that time factored into an IQ test.

I believe it was higher before, as I scored 150 on a test for 13 year olds when I was 12.

As for the other thing he said about me, I find it really interesting how he can link CC (the girl in my avatar) or Code Geass (anime that CC is from) to tentacle rape. But let's assume he's right for a moment. You still vote for me because people that say "iamalwaysright" turn out to be Zedong's, Hitler's and Stalin's, and I believe the harms of mass genocide outweigh pictures for people to mast****** to.

But before that level, please realize that both the IQ and Anime points that my opponent bring up are still only examples of what Ad Hominem is. As you can see, all he is doing is attempting to show you how certain parts of me are "bad", and not attacking the case that I presented in R1. He still has not proven in any way how Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy, so therefore he still cannot win.

Oh yeah.

Just to be fair, I will give my opponent a chance to prove that what I watch are linked to tentacle rape. The following is every anime series that I have ever watched. If he can prove that ANY of these anime explicitly support tentacle rape, then I forfeit the debate.

Bamboo Blade
Clannad
Claymore
Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion
Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2
Death Note
Eureka 7
Full Metal Alchemist
Full Metal Panic!
Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu
Full Metal Panic: The Second Raid
Genesis of Aquarion
Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex 2nd GIG
Gundam 00
Gundam SD
Ichigo 100%
Infinite Ryvius
Karas
Lucky Star
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya
Neon Genesis Evangelion
Ouran High School Host Club
Prince of Tennis
Seto no Hanayome
Tsubasa Chronicle

Of course, he's still going to have to break the other layers I have in the debate. He's going to have to prove that Ad Hominem isn't a logical fallacy to begin with in order for his attacks on my IQ and the anime I watch to have any effect.

Arigato gozaimasu.

Ja, ne?

My opponent is clearly a lunatic and therefore anything he has said thus far cannot be taken at face value making this debate null and void. If anyone in charge, could please close this debate so that I could start a new one with a much more credible and qualified opponent, that would be much appreciated.

You know, I WOULD respond to his R3... but intuition tells me what I'd say would be against the terms of service of this site. On top of that, I know that it's against the rules of debate since I can't bring up any new arguments - i mean, logical fallacies, in the last round.

Well, I gave him a chance to prove his belief that anime is tentacle rape, and I gave him a multitude of choices. He very clearly chose not to carry through with his claim, whereas my lunaticity hasn't been proven in any way.

If you want to judge based on who's a better person, I still win because I mast****** to girls that don't exist while he carries out mass genocides around the world; he obviously has many more personality flaws. But I'd rather you not do that. Instead, look to the nonfallacious arguments that we have presented.

He has none, and I have one.

Extend my R1. He has not met the burden of proof, therefore he loses the debate.

Vote PRO.

Ohyeah.
There is no way in hell that Lucky Star is tentacle rape.