He claimed that wittgenstein invented the concept of ad hominem which is a rediculous claim. Clearly writing out is for the purpose of allowing someone to read a book about your view when you are not there and gain a signifigant understanding of it, without being a genius. 1) If you are really good you could explain your views to anybody on the spot by just looking at what points they are not understanding you and 2) Having an idea "clearly written out" is hardly signifigant when it has been used for ever and ever. People figured it out without it having been "clearly written out before" and they would again without it. And those would communicate it to others etc. Its useful, but not that important and who actually doesn't is not really signifigant. Oh you think the number of people who "agree" is relevant do you? How many thousand different ways can I point out how rediculous this type of thinking really is? 1. If you are logically correct, then a potentially infinite number of people in the future will agree with you. 2. If the only knowledge a person is capable of having is the abscence of dissenting information, then true agreement would consist of each person seperately searching for alternative beliefs before accepting one. What happens if you go somewhere like a college and ask the professor how his claims make sense given xy and z? Unless he is a philosophy professor who is a real philosopher, you get an F no matter how good your question is. 3. You ignored this one already, but its worth rementioning: If you decided whether or not a viewpoint was valid based on how many people already agreed with it, then your contributed agree ment says nothing about the validity of the claim. Yet you contribute to the "number of people who agree with it". Meaning the number of people who agree with it is not in any way indicitave of the validity of the claim. The problem is not with your ability to read fallacy definitions, but your ability to understand them and deductively reason about what falls into that category. For every fallacy like that listed, there are a million different ways to use it with many being less obvious than others.