I pretty sure it’s attacking one’s character without addressing the debate itself is classed as ad hominem.
Regardless soon as you start insulting people you have you have lost the argument.
Back 10 years ago you could have a debate and disagree on an issue without having to insult someone’s character.
That depends on how loose definitions are you willing to accept.
It definitely is a fallacious debating tactic, but strictly speaking, ad hominem afaik only refers to that one specific use case.
Sadly, nowadays even dictionaries allow looser definitions on various terms to accomodate colloquial usage, which is yet another great debate to be had, bc it leads to a myriad of problems. Especially economics and politology are plagued by this.
And also while I generally agree that when you start with the insults, you have already lost, I don't think the situation was as hood back in the day. Public debates have been plagued by logical fallacies, emotional and immature since speech itsrlf became a thing.
