What kind of logical fallacy is this?

Think A debate is happening about fiction.
Like Superman vs Ultraman.[This has nothing to do with DC comic's Superman or Ultraman]
Both has different creators.
Both Creators state Their characters are omnipotent.
But It found out later in the story That Ultraman is not omnipotent,Because He has weakness.
Ultraman's Fans started to say Superman also not Omnipotent.
Statements means nothing.Creators makes mistakes
But Superman fans says Ultraman and Superman both has different creators Just because Ultraman's creator debunked his own answer that doesn't mean or has anything to do with Superman franchise.
Ultraman fans:Superman didn't show any good feats you are using No limits fallacy.
Superman fans:But Superman never shown any weakness How can he show good feats when there is no threat after all?Why are you using your favorite franchise to debunk mine's favorite franchise?When both franchises are different.
What kind of logical fallacy Ultraman's fans made?

Starbeard, it would be extremely helpful and productive if you took a little more time to
phrase your questions properly. As they are currently they tend to be poorly constructed
and particularly annoying to most the participants.

I should say that taking the time to organize your problems and arguments
properly would be enormously instructive and edifying for yourself, and allow you to search Dr.
Bo's fallacies on your own.

The scenario stated as is, or as best as I can determine would point to:
(See Dr. Bo's explanation)

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.

Therefore, Y must not be true.

Example #1:

Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.

Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time so that can’t be true.

Explanation: It doesn’t matter (to the truth claim of the argument at least) if Helga follows her own advice or not. While it might appear that the reason she does not follow her own advice is that she doesn’t believe it’s true, it could also be that those fat burgers are just too damn irresistible.

Example #2:

Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet he has had several affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.

Explanation: The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual immorality in general, only that he is sexually immoral.

Exception: If Jimbo insisted that his actions were in line with sexual morality, then it would be a very germane part of the argument.

Tip: Again, admit when your lack of self-control or willpower has nothing to do with the truth claim of the proposition. The following is what I remember my dad telling me about smoking (he smoked about four packs a day since he was 14).

Bo, never be a stupid a--hole like me and start smoking. It is a disgusting habit that I know will eventually kill me. If you never start, you will never miss it.

My dad died at age 69 -- of lung cancer. I never touched a cigarette in my life and never plan to touch one.

References:

Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.