> The whole 'big balls' thing is a silly ad-hominem that weakens your argument.

It's not an ad-hom, it's a metric to gauge the maturity of the teenager granted such high level access and responsibility.

"Ad-hominem" translates as "to the person" and means an argument that attacks the person they're arguing against rather than actually addressing the topic being discussed.

Here, the topic is a person. It's not an ad-hominem to describe facts about a person when your argument is explicitly about that person.

I don’t know that that makes the argument for them having access to this data any better.

BB is a script kiddie. How would you know how good his DOGE performance is to make a valid comparison.

You're claiming that it's a logical fallacy to consider the conduct of people running an organization in order to evaluate its trustworthiness. That's absurd. Next time, take context into account when copy-pasting other people's arguments.