Ping me when you have remembered how to debate properly, OP. Until then, my friend, we are best off just swapping RPG in-jokes.
Oh, good grief. At least learn the proper descriptions of the various Classical Logic Fallacies before you try them out in Debate... please.
An Argumentum ad hominem (an "Attack upon the Person") would be if I, for example, called you "a scared little Dispy heretic who's unwilling to face the realities of your own theology", and therefore claimed that nothing that you say has any value.
That would be a Logical Fallacy, of course. But I would never do such a thing.
The fact is, I am obeying the Logical forms of Analogical Reasoning exactly -- I have changed none of the Terms of the Equation, only the Variables.
And if a Given Statement would be Anti-Christian Racialist for a Christian Identity preacher to claim -- then it is equally Anti-Christian Racialist for a Dispensationalist preacher to claim (substituting only the Racial Group in question).
I have observed all normal Rules of Logic.
I call the Lawyers (Marlowe and Jude) to find one... even one Logical Error in my Analogical Equivalence (Since I have left the Terms of the Equation the same, and the exchanged Variables are each respective "Ethnic Groups", my Analogic Reasoning is without Flaw).
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.