“Mr. Speaker, the phrase "Ad hominem" was coined by a gentleman who endorsed putting marmite in a scone. I don't think we need to use this vulgar phrase in the House.”
Ad hominem (derived from Latin; or Ad-ay ominem-Hay in Pig Latin) is an effective technique used to disprove the argument of a stupid person whose ill-conceived ideas are probably reminiscent of a troubled childhood. The opponent is attacked personally rather than responded to based on their daft ideals and even dafter hairstyle. In most cases the point that is attacked is irrelevant and has no reasoning behind it. Those who use ad hominem points to counter ad hominem points are just as silly and are only leading themselves down a route of more sin.
An example of an ad hominem argument is the debate surrounding gays. The gay sinners, who thanks to their high pitched voice can barely be detected by normal human ears, when presenting their argument put forward the point that people who hate gays only hate gays because they're white and vote for the BNP. The gays who mentioned this point all went to states school and learnt geography so are, unfortunately, completely incapable of understanding how stupid their point was.
Abusive ad hominem arguments involve a petty use of verbal or physical violence against the opponent because the opponent is mentally ill and only has one arm and so can't hold up a substantive argument. Verbal abuse can involve comedic lampoons of the opposition with statements such as "You smell", "You're a loser" and "Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker the Honourable Gentleman owns less than me. Pray shut him up my good man."
Abuse can also be delivered by alcohol. In the Scottish parliament the infallibility of an MP's argument is determined on what type and brand of alcohol he or she consumes. If the opposition find the alcoholic beverage's taste to be inadequate, then empty bottles of whisky are thrown across the floor of the debating chamber towards the proposition. This way of settling debates is referred to as "curling". In the US Congress however any mention of alcohol could have a senator branded a drug-taking hippy for life and the words, "the Nazi lover" used when addressing the congressman in question.
A circumstantial use of ad hominem happens only when the opposition's husband/wife has left him/her or when the fact that it is raining outside shows that God hates the opposition. In the circumstance that the opposition outnumbers the proposition heavily an ad hominem argument is not advised as a route to take for the proposition.
Tu quoque does not, as believed by many, mean "Your cock" in Spanish but instead means "Your hen" as "quoque", derived from French, is feminine and not masculine. It is the title given to the "I know you are but what am I?" argument, a form of ad hominem argument that turns whatever the opposition spews out of its inferior mouth into a point against them, much like when a female chicken lays an egg that, when hatched, sends splinters of the shell flying into her face.
Guilt by association
The worst form of ad hominem arguments is that which associate the opponent with an opponent's race or organisation. For example when Martin Luther King (Jr.) declared that the head of the KKK, Hiram Wesley Evans, didn't want Blacks to have equal rights because Wesley was white and did not want to share his privileges, it was ad hominem and frankly a usual stupid black trick that Martin Luther King used to bring the idea of race into an argument and attack Wesley on the basis of skin colour, a thing that Wesley had no control over. In the same respect it is wrong to assume David Cameron went to Eton College just because he is associated with the school, having attended it earlier when he was younger.
Criticism of ad hominem statements and points in an argument usually comes from wealthy intellectual philosophers, who thanks to their Jewish backgrounds shouldn't really have the right to speak upon the subject at all. The snivelling little creatures attempt to tell the population of the world what to do and how to think while sitting and counting their money before dumping a tonne of it on the head of anyone who says anything ad hominem - that's if they are tall enough to reach above the person's head while standing on a stool.
The British also hypocritically satirise ad hominem statements by writing stupid parody bits of "prose" (if you can call it that) on comedy sites. They struggle to fit this around their busy schedule of shooting natives, being pompous and being racist. Fortunately for the rest of the normal world, Britain's opinions don't count as they haven't got nice tasting cuisine.