>>11524115>Using the N word is an adhomI hope this is tongue-in-cheek. You sound like someone from the YouTube "skeptic" community ca. 2014. . . people just throwing out the term "logical fallacy" left and right, often in contexts where it doesn't make sense. Not to mention, the ad hominem isn't even a formal fallacy (meaning it's not really a fallacy at all, in the sense of formal logic).
By the way, if you'd like to add another informal fallacy to you repertoire, you just committed a tu quoque (which is, to be fair, about as logically harmless as an ad hominem).
In actual academic circle the main fallacies people worry about are fallacies like denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, fallacies of ambiguity, non-sequiters, and statistical and inductive fallacies. Informal fallacies aren't really even addressed, because it's just rhetoric, by another name. What you really have to worry about are formal fallacies like the ones I listed above, because they can actually lead to incorrect conclusions.
