That doesn’t leave much – or indeed, any – room for a civilized discussion. Anything less than whole-hearted agreement causes the BDS sufferer to direct the vitriol toward his interlocutor, who would receive kinder treatment if he had come out in favor of child molestation.

The sanctimoniousness is particularly hard to take. BDS sufferers typically beg the question by presuming their conclusion in making their opening statement. (“Given that Bush is a war criminal, an idiot, an incompetent, went to war to enrich himself and his friends (!), has shredded the Constitution, and ties firecrackers to puppies’ tails …”). That is not a promising start to a rational exchange of views.

(In other words, dagnabbit, it’d be nice if the other side of said unwarranted “debate” would read the rules too. But funnily enough, life isn’t fair. Sigh.)

There are some problems with your rule number 3 above, as it implies mere withdrawal. The point about it being a dinner party is that you don’t want to withdraw, you haven’t asked for a political debate, it is unwelcome, and you wish to change the subject. That was the context for my advice in the first place.

In a formal debate, that is to say a non-social occasion, I don’t think you should leave your opponent alone on the stage simply because they are too stupid or ill-informed to continue the debate.

I heartily recommend trying number 5 above before concluding that your conversation partner is not capable of following the argument or discussing differences of opinion in good faith. If they can’t or won’t respond, that is a serious matter. Again, this is a good rule for discussion, but not necessarily for debate.

To your list, I would also add that you should be as precise as you possibly can be in your logic, pay attention to the meanings of words, and take responsibility for your argument. Make corrections and give credit. You should never use your own sloppiness (lack of clarity or rigor in your argument) as a convenient way to avoid conceding lost points. This behavior leads people to conclude that you are not principled, intelligent, or well-meaning. At that point, your rule number 3 begins to kick in.

1. Avoid making it personal. You have the facts on your side, so there’s no need to put the other person’s education, intelligence or upbringing down.
2. Avoid exaggerating the other person’s views. Often, people state their case in ways the leaves wide room for interpretation. You’ll be a lot more persuasive if you give their statement the maximum benefit of any doubt. Remember, we’re talking about someone who’s making statements that are wrong in big ways that are easy to demonstrate, so there will be no need to exaggerate. Straw men are a waste of everyone’s time.
3. Always behave as if the person you’re debating with is, in general, just as smart and/or informed as you are. If you’re certain the person you’re debating is unintelligent, change the subject or leave the room. Taking glee in defeating a moron in a debate is like tattooing “Sociopath” onto your forehead.
4. Don’t let the other person personalize the debate. Only you control how you respond, and ignoring ad hominem is dead simple.
5. Try helping your opponent along. You’re smart and well-informed, so you have no need to debate weak opponents. When someone provides a weak argument, help strengthen them, then take that on. Doing so helps establish rapport and also makes you more persuasive. The best way to anticipate someone’s arguments is to make them first in your own mind.
6. Keep it simple, keep it concise. The rapier, not the bludgeon.

7. Run to your computer and type out a blog post whining at length about how terrible it is that someone who is not conservative would dare to speak up at a dinner party.

8. Type out another post explaining that liberals dominate academia, the media, the diplomatic corps, etc. but somehow always lose the debate when run up against the Oblio Wall of Cut-Rate Condescension.

And I should’ve added, Neo, fabulous post. Thank you as always for your insight.

“[T]he fear comes from the existence of the threat, not the fact that somebody pointed it out. Pretending that the threat doesn’t exist may be more comfortable, but it won’t make the threat go away.”