The speaker attacks the opponent's past, showing that it is either inconsistent with his argument, or he lacking in experience in the area. Speaker 1 makes Argument A Speaker 2 attacks Speaker 1 's experience in the field of Argument A . Therefore, Argument A is wrong This argument is a fallacy because the speaker's past in an experience is irrelevant. The speaker may be a hypocrite, and it may show that he is unreliable, or he may have no experience in it, but this will only discredit him or her, not the argument. Note that in cases of which the argument directly concerns the speakers' past or hypocracy, this is a null fallacy.
Family values are good.
You've been divorced three times, you ninny. Well, so I've screwed up. Pot is bad for you. No it isn't.