Zaključili z argumenti? Argument ad hominem je tudi argument :). Le slab oz. ne najboljši za zavrnitev nasprotnikovih stališč, če je nasprotnik dober sogovornik. Če pa je sogovornik slab in se za obrambo stališč zateka lažem, izmišljotinam ter posploševanjem, pa je za takešn nivo debate argmuent ad hominem povsem ustrezen. Ti seveda padeš v drugo kategorijo.

"Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism."