It's
a classic ad hominem technique — if you can't discredit someone's argument then you try to discredit them personally.
OTOH, Ray Donahue's was
a classic Ad Hominem.
Also, your attack on the study is
classic ad hominem — attacking the source / motivations of the source rather then the facts and substance of the study.
Seems to me calling a DOJ investigation a «witch hunt» is
a classic ad hominem: attack the character and intention of the messenger rather than the actual content of the message.
That is
classic ad hominem, what they or I know is irrelevant to the argument I made.
Your comment re: «whining» is
classic ad hominem.
Your comments about «belittle» and «grow up» are
classic ad hominem that does nothing to advance debate.
Not exact matches
These examples illustrate
classic uses of
ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.