No, it is not. That would include slander, insult, denigration, etc. - and these are far more common than ad hominem argument. (There is no ad hominem argument in the post by QQ that Sarkus quoted in the post I referred to above, for example. ) An "ad hominem" is an ad hominem argument, and it is made against the "points raised" - it is an "attack" against those points. (A fallacious one, to be sure). btw: It does not even have to rest on a negative assessment or description of the person, but can be based on praise or other deflection; the personal focus can consist of true, false, undecidable, or bullshit premises and claims; the key property of the personal focus is that it be in fact irrelevant to the conclusion or the "points raised". That's where an ad hominem argument's nature as a fallacy rests.