How can you identify and avoid personal attacks and ad hominem?

An ad hominem argument, from the Latin "against the person," is a fallacy that attacks the character, motives, or personal traits of the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. In practice, it is often conflated with general personal attacks, which cover a broader range of insults and hostile characterizations. Both erode productive conversation and typically result in moderation action. Identifying ad hominem in your own writing requires asking a specific question before posting a comment: "Is what I am writing about what this person said, or about who this person is?" A sentence like "Your argument is flawed because you're clearly biased against the company" attacks the person's alleged bias rather than demonstrating the logical problem in the argument. A sentence like "This data you cited reflects the company's self-interest because it was funded by the company and has not been independently replicated" addresses the argument itself. The first is ad hominem; the second is not. Common warning signs that you are drifting toward personal attacks include using second-person language to describe character traits ("you're the kind of person who..."), making assumptions about the poster's intelligence or education, referencing their past behavior on unrelated topics to discredit their current argument, or responding to their tone or attitude rather than their content. Phrases like "you clearly haven't thought about this seriously" or "this is a dumb take" are personal attacks even when they feel like legitimate frustration. In a heated conversation, the most reliable technique for staying on the right side of this line is to re-read your comment before posting and delete every sentence that could apply to any version of the person making the argument rather than to the specific argument they actually made. The remaining content — the substance — is what your reply should consist of.