@Arenzael said:
Ad hominem itself being latin for "to the man/human being." What about that phrase don't you understand?I'm not sure how you came to this understanding of the fallacy ad hominem, but regardless of that it should be corrected.
Ad hominem fallacies need not be insults. In fact normally they aren't. Insults need not be ad hominem fallacies. In fact normally they aren't.
If I'm trying to prove a point by saying that the points you're making are false because it's you who brought them up, that is ad hominem. More generally, it is an attack on the source of the argument rather than on the argument itself. It's obvious why this is a fallacy. The argument is being diverted from itself "to the man" (as you so correctly translated).
"Arenzael's point is invalid because his nickname starts with the letter A," is ad hominem. "Arenzael is a double douche," is an insult. "Arenzael's point is invalid because he's a double douche," is both an insult and ad hominem.
Please try harder next time you attempt to look intelligent. A quick trip to Wikipedia (or, in fact, any dictionary) could have saved you the embarrassment you're no doubt feeling.