Talk:ad hominem argument

RFD discussion: October–November 2016
ad hominem + argument. Equinox ◑ 17:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, but what of, is that immune because of the unusual postpositive nature of ? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say it isn't immune because in that case ad hominem is operating adverbially, not adjectivally. It's usual to put an adverb phrase after a noun. Equinox ◑ 13:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect: to ad hominem (and do the same for argument ad hominem) Pur ple back pack 89  19:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey I actually agree with Purple for once. Redirect is the smart idea. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Redirect makes the most sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. SOP. An ad hominem is a type of argument. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Purp. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirected, together with . What, if anything, should be done with ? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)