Well, to tell you truth, I have learned a long time ago that the trick when doing a debate, any kind of debate, is to just turn off the judgment switch in my head.
The passive aggressive arguer comes armed with tricky tactics. They cannot take the risk that they might be wrong: their self-esteem is too intertwined with their opinions. It is more important to affirm their rightness, and sense of superiority, than to arrive at the truth.
...associational ad hominem attacks remain the left's favorite rhetorical strategy for undermining opponents.
I have never believed you make your case stronger by bad-mouthing your opposition.
Political thinking consists in deciding upon the conclusion first and then finding good arguments for it. An open mind is considered irresponsible.
I think that's where we can both seize upon the contradictions and push them to limits that these people would not consider, while at the same time in some way you're taking advantage of what these people are saying within a discourse that has some legitimacy.
The most striking difference between ancient and modern sophists is that the ancients were satisfied with a passing victory of argument at the expense of truth, whereas the moderns want a more lasting victory at the expense of reality.
In the battle that is philosophy all the techniques of war, including looting and camouflage, are permissible.
