Well I agree with all that, but with at least one remaining poster here the technique fails miserably. This bit: "...that is, by never outright denying a conclusion, the Master presumes the good will of the objector..." in his case is clearly a false presumption. Not only is good will lacking (replaced by the will to win), sensible debate is impossible as the "objector" constantly aims to ignore his perceived opponents' fair sentiments and set traps. We've all seen people of good will involved in interminable attempts to reason with him, but they simply end up looking like chumps. Hence our call to everyone to resist jumping through hoops and, instead, to talk past him. Sometimes, Kevin, even "the Master" might have admitted failure and simply shrugged and turned his back.