What kind of fallacies are these?

1. In a disagreement, one person constantly uses the failures of the other person's past to invalidate their points, even if it is unrelated to the disagreement at hand. 

Sounds like some type of ad hominem; the specific form would depend on the content of the statement. More generally, the irrelevant use of someone else's past to attack their present argument is a non sequitur.

2. In a debate or argument, one member of the argument overwhelms the other with repetitive and non stop points to try and push the other party in the disagreement to cease all objections (aka...."word beat them into submission"). 
 

This is a gish gallop.

Ad hominem, gish gallop and nonsequitur. However, in a policy discussion (for example), past failures do flag to examine closely anything the person has to say. 

#1) You've had all these failures therefore you're wrong could be a genetic fallacy or non sequitur.

#2) Nothing can be determined without knowing what "the talking points" are with regard to the subject. If they're relevant information where's the problem?