What fallacy is demonstrated when one person attacks another's character in response to a disagreement?

The fallacy demonstrated when one person attacks another's character in response to a disagreement is known as Ad Hominem. This type of fallacy occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or motives of the person making it rather than addressing the validity of the argument itself.

For example, if during a debate about climate change one participant dismisses an opposing view simply by pointing out that the opponent is not a scientist or has made mistakes in their personal life, this would exemplify an Ad Hominem attack. The focus shifts away from the actual issue at hand to irrelevant personal traits, undermining the discussion's integrity.

In contrast, other options would not accurately describe this tactic. Begging the Question involves assuming the conclusion within the premises, and Attributing Blame would imply shifting responsibility rather than directly attacking someone’s character. "Only Options" is not a recognized fallacy in this context. Therefore, the appropriate identification of this fallacy as Ad Hominem encompasses the act of undermining an argument by focusing on the individual rather than the argument itself.