The Reverse of Ad Hominem

Is there a fallacy that is the reverse of Abusing the Man (Ad Hominem)?

For example, I have noticed how people will give gushing praise and adulation of a witness or somone defending some position on television. It seems to me that this is the other side of the coin of an Ad Hominem fallacy. If it is true that a person's personal life has no bearing on the argument he or she is making (unless of course it is an argument about something in his or her personal life), then so it mus be true that a glowing report on their personal life also has no bearing on their argument Is there name for the reverse of Ad Hominem?

Fallacy Based on Transfer

Transfer is an emotional appeal that associates something or someone known (and therefore implied “good”) with a product, idea, or candidate. Celebrity endorsements are an example. Well-known objects and images can be used the same way, evoking an emotional response that sponsors hope will transfer to their cause.

This is a cognitive bias known as the Halo Effect . Generally, an ad hominem is "You're ugly so your argument is bad." The halo effect, applied to argumentation might be "You're handsome so you make a strong argument!" This is far less common, so that is why there is no common fallacy name associated with it, but it would fall under a non-sequitur . Most people who experience the halo effect simply would agree with the argument then attempt to rationalize why the argument is good instead of such a direct admission, which may not be possible since the halo effect often happens at a subconscious level.

I think the reverse ad hom can be categorized under the genetic fallacy, which is the fallacy of deeming a claim true or false in virtue of the origin of the claim, and the origin can include the claimant's achievements, credentials, intelligence, history, etc.
Here are a few examples of the genetic fallacy from another website<>:
1. My parents told me that God exists; therefore, God exists.
2. My sixth grade teacher, Mr. Harris, said that all women are bad drivers, so it must be true.
3. I have known the mayor since I was five years old. So, if she says that the commissioners are corrupt, then it must be true.

Ad hominem is usually a negative attack but it isn't necessarily the case. It means to address the person instead of the argument, and if someone were to claim that an argument is correct because the person has nice eyes, that would be ad hominem.

This isn't to be confused with hyperbole or rhetoric. Building a witness's character up or down doesn't really relate to an argument but rather the veracity of the witness.