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.