This is probably the one I see the most, and even Schopenhauer named it (and saved it for last) as "The Ultimate Stratagem".

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one's own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as "Death before dishonour," and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one's intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness. A cool demeanour may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, "That has no bearing on the point in dispute," and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults. Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades - Strike, but hear me. But such demeanour is not given to every one.

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool - desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace. — Schopenhauer

I would simply add to that, that by coming at someone by being completely antagonistic and rude, you can try to throw them off their "game", creating emotional resentment on top of the actual argument at hand.

Another strategy..
Act as though one is already right, but do so with as much condescension in tone of the "obviousness" of your opponent's argument being wrong. Thus, the argument itself isn't so much as wrong as the appearance of it.

I don't disagree with you (or him). But in my experience insults and attacks, while somewhat effective against beginners, is also a beginner's strategy. Anyone can make someone feel bad by being mean to them. You know you are an expert when you can make folks feel bad by being nice to them.

Does he have a name for one of these?

"If you think shit smells, you must think your nose is trying to poison you." A kissing cousin to a reductio.

Ultimately in any argument it is necessary to be honest.

Progress in an argument comes from convincing individuals that they have made a mistake or to doubt their premises or definitions. These admissions of error are voluntary acts. Even if the realization that your argument is imperfect is unavoidable, admitting it to yourself and your interlocutor is still a choice. Fully reflecting on the implications of these errors is even more difficult than a simple choice. Since progress is only possible through voluntary admission of error, you can never lose an argument if you simply never admit any mistake, no matter how absurd your position becomes.

Thus to set out to argue with the object of winning the argument is already an act of dishonesty. And if people argue in a dishonest way, they are not pursuing truth but rather recognition. Epistemology has given way to narcissism. Much of philosophy really is nothing but narcissism, in which the object is to present beautiful, appealing, and elegant reasoning.

Truth has nothing going for it. It isn't beautiful, appealing, or elegant. Its biggest flaw is its lack of popularity. Those who start out by making a flawed argument and are suddenly confronted by the truth, will suddenly turn away from their own subject to begin attacking the truth, blind to how they are undermining their own argument. In their narcissism, they will never admit their error.

Without honest interlocutors, the argument is nothing more than a battle, a proxy for actual physical combat between people. Each wishes to force the other to agree to his terms so that he can validate himself. Under such conditions, it is only natural that each would resort to ad hominem. It is no longer the exercise of reason, but the base application of the tools of rationality to achieve selfish ends. When these ends come into conflict, the only solution is the elimination of the obstruction through whatever means necessary. Such dishonest interlocutors really wish for the death of the other, and indeed we are in the battle prior to the Master-Slave Dialectic of The Phenomenology of Spirit.

There is a turning point from which the argument ceases to be about truth and begins to be about individual egos. And if a person sets out to discuss "being right" rather than "truth" it is apparent that such a person has already turned the corner, so to speak. Ironically, the hallmark of the "being right" approach is the pedantic pointing out of logical errors or false premises. Such interlocutors reveal their hands when they do not see how the opposition won't admit to being wrong when confronted by this pointing out. In fact, the pointing out does not itself suggest anything. The truth value of nonsense is indeterminate -- it is neither better nor worse than false.