While logic is quite important for many things, it seems that many arguments are "won" or "lost" not based on the soundness or lack-thereof of the arguments, but by auxiliary desiderata that I will call normative standards. Here's a concrete example, as a dialog between a A and B based on appeal to "hypocrisy":
A: "I want to drink some beer"
B: "You are not allowed to drink beer if you're under 21"
B: "That's the rule I made, and any rule I make has to be followed provided its not logically wrong"
A: "But YOU'RE drinking beer and you are under 21!"
B: "Yes, that is true."
A: "Then either your rule is invalid or you are a hypocrite."
B: "I am a hypocrite...the full rule is "You cannot drink beer if you are under 21..unless you are me."
A: "Ah-ha, I knew you were a hypocrite....I'm having a beer, this rule is total crap." (said with a hint of self-satisfied smugness).
Many people (I think) would agree with A, since B is being a hypocrite. However, there don't appear to be any logical flaws in B's responses, whereas A is claiming to have uncovered a flaw in B's argument (The hypocrisy of "Nobles oblige")...most people I suspect would agree that B did made a mistake by admitting to hypocrisy.
While I personally dislike "do as I say, not as I do" rules, it seems very ad hominem to assert hypocrisy as a logical tool in debates. Sure, it has moral, psychological, and normative force, since we dislike feeling or being thought of as hypocrites - but this hardly constitutes a logical flaw.
Therefore, is A justified in claiming logical victory over B, or merely appeal to normative standards?