然而，重要的是要记住，论证广告并不总是谬论！并非一个人的一切都与每一个可能的主题或他们可能提出的任何可能的论点无关。有时候提出一个人在某个主题上的专业知识是完全合法的，这是对他们的看法持怀疑态度，甚至可能不屑一顾的理由。上述论点建立在这样的假设之上：如果一个人要对进化生物学的可能性或不可能做出可信的断言，那么他们真的应该接受一些生物学方面的培训 – 最好是学位，也许是一些实践经验。乔治不是生物学家，也没有生物学方面的培训。因此，他对进化生物学方面有什么或不可能的看法没有很多可信度。现在，公平地指出缺乏培训或知识不能作为宣布其意见是虚假的自动理由。如果不出意外，他们至少可能通过随机机会进行猜测。然而，与具有相关培训和知识的人提供的结论相比，我们有一个不接受第一人称陈述的良好基础。因此，这种有效的ad hominem论证在某种程度上与对权威论证的有效诉求相反。广告谬误是一类谬误，不仅常见，而且常被误解。许多人认为任何人身攻击都是一个广告，但事实并非如此。有些攻击不是广告谬论，而且一些广告谬误并不是明确的侮辱。 Argument ad hominem的概念意味着“男人的论证”，尽管它也被翻译为“反对男人的论据”。而不是批评一个人所说的话和他们所提供的论据，而是我们所拥有的是批评论证来自哪个人（人）。这并不一定与所说的有效性有关 – 因此，它是一种相关的谬误。滥用广告：最常见和众所周知的广告谬论只是一种简单的侮辱，被称为滥用广告。当一个人放弃试图说服一个人或一个观众关于一个合理的职位并且现在仅仅采取人身攻击时，就会发生这种情况。 Tu Quoque（两个错误并不是正确的）：一个广告同性恋的谬论，它不会因为随机的，无关的事情而攻击一个人，而是因为他们如何呈现他们的案件而对他们进行一些明显的错误攻击它们通常被称为tu quoque，这意味着“你也是。”这通常发生在一个人因为他们反对的事情而受到攻击时。环境广告：通过攻击可能接受这种论证的整个阶级来解雇争论被称为间接的广告。这个名称来源于它解决那些担任该职位的人的情况。遗传谬误：攻击某人所提出的位置而不是人或争论的起源被称为遗传谬误，因为它基于这样一种观念，即观念的原始来源是评估其真实性或合理性的良好基础。毒害中毒：对一个对其性格提出质疑的人进行先发制人的攻击称为“毒中毒”并试图使目标在他们甚至有机会说出任何话之前显得不好。所有这些不同类型的ad hominem论证都非常相似，在某些情况下看起来几乎相同。因为这个类别涉及相关性的谬误，所以当评论针对与手头主题无关的人的某些方面时，广告同性恋论证是一种谬误。
澳大利亚莫纳什大学心理学Assignment代写：反对人的争论
It is important, however, to remember that an argumentum ad hominem is not always a fallacy! Not everything about a person is irrelevant to every possible topic or any possible argument that they might make. Sometimes it is entirely legitimate to bring up a person’s expertise in some subject as a reason to be skeptical, and perhaps even dismissive, of their opinions about it. The above argument rests upon the assumption that, if a person is going to make credible assertions about what is or is not possible for evolutionary biology, then they really should have some training in biology – preferably a degree and perhaps some practical experience. George is not a biologist and has no training in biology. Therefore, his opinions about what is or is not possible with regards to evolutionary biology do not have a lot of credibility. Now, to be fair pointing out the lack of training or knowledge does not qualify as an automatic reason for declaring their opinion to be false. If nothing else, it’s at least possible that they have made a guess by random chance. When contrasted with the conclusions offered by a person who does have relevant training and knowledge, however, we have a sound basis for not accepting the first person’s statements. This type of valid ad hominem argument is therefore in some ways the reverse of a valid appeal to authority argument. The ad hominem fallacy is a class of fallacies which is not only common but also commonly misunderstood. Many people assume that any personal attack is an ad hominem argument, but that isn’t true. Some attacks aren’t ad hominem fallacies, and some ad hominem fallacies aren’t clear insults. What the concept Argument ad hominem means is “argument to the man,” although it is also translated as “argument against the man.” Instead of criticizing what a person says and the arguments they are offering, what we have instead is a criticism of where the arguments are coming from (the person). This is not necessarily relevant to the validity of what is said – thus, it is a Fallacy of Relevance. Abusive ad hominem: The most common and well-known type of ad hominem fallacy is just a simple insult and is called the abusive ad hominem. It occurs when a person has given up attempting to persuade a person or an audience about the reasonable of a position and is now resorting to mere personal attacks. Tu Quoque (two wrongs don’t make a right): An ad hominem fallacy which does not attack a person for random, unrelated things, but instead attacks them for some perceived fault in how they have presented their case is often called tu quoque, which means “you too.” It often occurs when a person is attacked for doing what they are arguing against. Circumstantial ad hominem: Dismissing an argument by attacking an entire class of people who presumably accept that argument is called the circumstantial ad hominem. The name is derived from the fact that it addresses the circumstances of those who hold the position in question. Genetic Fallacy: Attacking the origins for the position someone is proposing instead of the person or the argument is called the Genetic Fallacy because it is based on the idea that the original source of an idea is a sound basis for evaluating its truth or reasonableness. Poisoning the Well: A preemptive attack on a person which questions their character is called Poisoning the Well and is an attempt to make the target appear bad before they even have a chance to say anything. All of these different types of ad hominem argument are fairly similar and in some cases can appear almost identical. Because this category involves fallacies of relevance, the ad hominem argument is a fallacy when the comments are directed against some aspect about a person which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.