In real life, virtually no one uses true ad hominem. No on says, "he is a jerk, therefore he's wrong." In my book, using insults and connotative (negative) lang

In real life, virtually no one uses true ad hominem. No on says, "he is a jerk, therefore he's wrong." In my book, using insults and connotative (negative) language rather than strictly denotative is on the ad hominem scale. It is absolutely designed to undermine the credibility of the person you're debating while not engaging the argument at all. If something is "a lot like ad hominem, but not ad hominem", then referring to it as "ad hominem" is deliberately distorting the truth. We shouldn't defend argument techniques that make truth-seeking harder. I don't see anyone claiming we should. What is being claimed is that this isn't ad hominem, which is a point you've all but conceded in your opening two sentences. If you are going to request that people debate "properly", it would be rather nice if you didn't reserve a special place for yourself and your favourite misinterpretations.