Nice, Christina. And then there are these problems. First, none of the arguments he points out is reductio ad absurdum (one must never forget the ad). Second, if one was, what the heck would be so wrong with that?

Third, who’s Leo Casey?

Update: Rethinking this argument, I believe our opponent classified it nearly correctly, actually—it is reductio ad absurdum, and a strong one at that. Now, when I ask, above, “who’s Leo Casey”... well, that’s definitely ad hominem.