And that, my friend, is a fallacy fallacy (or Argumentum ad logicam if you wish to be posh as heck).

Pointing out your opponent fallacies doesn’t make yours valid. I’d also add that this is not a Stawman fallacy, as he does not attempt to replace your (absence of) argument with one that he refutes, but rather an Ad Hominem.

Edit : I’d add that yours is also an Ad Hominem, which makes it quite ironic.