No doubt.
But I would like to air a pet peeve. The phrase “ad hominem attack” is a degenerate form, and I would say a vulgarisation, of the original idea of an “ad hominem argument”.
“Ad hominem” means “to the man”, not “against the man”, and it originally meant an argument tailored to a particular audience. For instance, if speaking to an audience of astronomers one might include rhetorical references to stars and galaxies and other astronomical objects. Galileo actually used the term ( ad hominem ) in a sense close to this.
I think the particular meaning we have today arose because of one form of arguing “to the man” in a debate before an audience. One might try to sway the audience by ridiculing the opposing debater, suggesting that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, etc. We can suppose that this sure-fire formula would be widely practiced and become familiar to all as the “ad hominem attack”.
I saw a movie once called “Attack of the ad hominems”.