There are two parties, P1 and P2.
There are two behaviors B1 and B2, which both parties agree are ethically undesirable or at least questionable.
P1 consciously refrains from B1, but not from B2, may it be from a lack of awareness, a lack of ability or a lack of integrity. P2 involves in both B1 and B2, also because of a lack of awareness, a lack of ability or a lack of integrity.
P1 argues that refraining from B1 is ethically superior to not doing so, This makes P2 aware of B1 and shows that refraining from B1 is possible. So, now P2 involves in B1 due to a lack of integrity. A lack of integrity is uncomfortable, so P2 tries to justify by arguing that P1 is a hypocrite as she/he refrains from B1, but not B2. Therefore, involving in B1 is ethically equal to not refraining from B1.
Is there a name for this type of pseudo argument? In case it qualifies as a knockout argument, I am still looking for something more specific.