I see a lot of logical fallacy accusations that don't apply as they were used, but I've also been told I wasn't using one of them correctly when I thought (and still do think) I was using it correctly. It's a straw man fallacy to change my words then argue against the changed argument. I'm not sure which misunderstanding led @Lemex to say I wasn't using the fallacy charge correctly: he didn't understand what I meant or there is some nuance about the fallacy I'm not aware of. I'm going to have to find the example this came up with. The most common straw man fallacy I see is regarding evolution theory debaters. They claim scientists exclude evidence about God and the Bible from science. They argue we should be "teaching the controversy." (Of course the scientific community piles the straw on by arguing 'science doesn't investigate designers' but that's another issue.) The evolution debate is not about considering all the evidence fairly, that's a no brainer for science. The debate is that the evidence against evolution theory is insignificant. As for the ad hominem, people do tend to think it refers to any and all insults. It doesn't. It's only when you use the insult or some other belittling of a person's expertise as the reason their argument or claim is wrong. I've had a ton of that thrown at me in this forum, for example claiming nurses can never have any medical expertise. This can be a tricky fallacy to apply at times when one does feel the person one is debating is so poorly informed about a topic it's hard to know where to start. One cannot give another person a college course of information in a couple posts. But to apply that when the other person's posts are at least up to the same level as the person making the accusation of ignorance makes it an ad hom fallacy. My medical knowledge is extensive, if it wasn't then the facts I posted would have been easily refuted. There's some overlap with pure insults that have ad hominem implications. When I see the conversation changing to, "you are dense, haha" and I see all the cheer leaders joining in, that's when I know they got nothin' and need to distract from that problem. So it's partly an insult. But when the implication is, your argument isn't based on evidence, it's based on obstinance, then it becomes an ad hom because it ignores the evidence by discounting the arguer.