What gets me riled is when I am engaged in an argument, and someone chips in, ostensibly on the same side, but saying things guaranteed to undermine the case I am trying to present. Like a stab in the back. (McGrath)

I see that I have a completely different approach in that matter. From my training, I have not the slightest hesitation to bring an argument that undermines even my own opinion (or that of others whose opinion I share). Weak points have to be exposed and not swept under the rug. Only this way I think one can learn something new (and sometimes even change a position).

What puts me off is when someone doesn't want figures to be challenged, doubts to be raised, particular arguments to be called wrong for the sole reason that the figures and arguments come from 'our' side, the right side.

I think that it should be possible to see the difference between calling an argument or an opinion wrong.

Only to mention things favourable for the own opinion is the lawyer's approach. It should have no place outside of their profession.

Wolfgang