What argument technique is exemplified by questioning the integrity of a witness based on their past actions?

The technique of questioning the integrity of a witness based on their past actions exemplifies the Ad Hominem fallacy. This argumentative strategy occurs when an individual's character or personal traits are attacked instead of addressing the substance of their argument or the validity of their testimony. By focusing on the witness's past behavior, the argument aims to undermine their credibility, suggesting that their previous actions reflect poorly on their current reliability or the truth of their statements. This tactic diverts attention from the actual issue at hand and shifts the focus to the witness’s character rather than the evidence or arguments they provide.

In contrast, other techniques do not directly involve personal attacks or character assessments. Inconsequent Argument relates to claims that are not relevant to the overall argument. Victory by Definition involves defining a certain term in such a way that one party cannot win, and "No Technique" implies lack of an argument altogether, which does not apply in this context where a specific fallacy is clearly at play.