Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced.
Even if they are prejudiced, it is still an ad hominem. A biased person (i.e., nearly all of us) could still make a correct argument, as could an unbiased bayesian with a strong prior.
There are very narrow categories when ad hominem is justified - specifically, if one is attempting to appeal to authority, then attacking the authority is justified. In all other cases that I can think of, it's a logical fallacy.
Even if they are prejudiced, it is still an ad hominem. A biased person (i.e., nearly all of us) could still make a correct argument, as could an unbiased bayesian with a strong prior.
There are very narrow categories when ad hominem is justified - specifically, if one is attempting to appeal to authority, then attacking the authority is justified. In all other cases that I can think of, it's a logical fallacy.