(Wikipedia) Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
I’m not saying this because is Mario (in fact, would strongly insist as not acceptable even against someone’s I don’t like; if we tolerate it, them it becomes an acceptable norm) but it’s not the first time fallacious argument pop up here in a way that is special kind of ad hominem, poisoning the well.
While the mere fact of arguments having fallacies doesn’t make it untrue (e.g. “argument from fallacy”), reasoning based on fallacies are invalid. And this kind of invalid argument does not depend necessarily on evidence, because it is how evidence (if any evidence at all) is used in a way that anything can be proved. It’s like saying “2 + 2 = 5” by using sum “+” or “=” wrong.
I’m not as upset with you, @Lewatoto, nor with DWG member in another thread, but I really am with fallacies pooping up as if they’re proof of anything and it seems it’s going for some time. And things are coming to a point that anyone, just because they agree with Mario, now becomes also invalid? If we accept this absurdity (e.g. association fallacy) then anything can be used without need to go down in evidence. I mean, it becomes to a point any way any external organization sponsoring things in the regions to deal with criticism (the ones not trivially resolvable) would mean opting not to solve issues but to instigate groups in the region against each other. From this point of view, care must be taken to stop wasting time.
Evidence/facts are often what people disagree with (and this makes it necessary to go after more context), but going as far as structure of argumentation itself to appeal to a point, is too arbitrary and in a way that is obvious.