Tu Quoque

The fallacious argument of "tu quoque" is also known as argumentum ad hominem tu quoque; the “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/13-ad-hominem-tu-quoque

Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument. Although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behaviour does not invalidate the position presented.

Logical Form:Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true. Therefore, Y must not be true.

Example #1:

Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.

Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time so that can’t be true.

Explanation: It doesn’t matter (to the truth claim of the argument at least) if Helga follows her own advice or not.  While it might appear that the reason she does not follow her own advice is because she doesn’t believe it’s true, it could also be that those fat burgers are just too damn irresistible.

Example #2: Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet he has had several affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.

Explanation: The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual immorality in general, only that he is sexually immoral.

Example #3: 

Jim: The idea of multiple gods originated in every ancient culture because it explains why bad things happen to good people, and vice versa, among other things.

Greg: You only demonstrate yet again the fact that you are either incapable or unwilling to address the matter on topic. Christians of various perspectives have offered you an integrated view of God and why He does things. All that you are demonstrating--yet again--is your unwillingness to recognize such posits let alone discuss such matters honestly in consideration of such, to the hopeful honest enlightenment of us all! 

Explanation: The point about polytheism made by Jim has been ignored. Even if Jim has been failing to recognise what is in other posits, or is off topic, or is guilty of any number of oher personal accusations, Greg is just avoiding the point (and confusing the issue) by making Jim the topic.