Can't recall where, but I recently read the observation that the most divisive change in American politics has been the evolution from portraying one's opponent as not just wrong, but bad.

It's polarizing because if your opponent has a deep character flaw, we're in a scorpion-crossing-the-river scenario, and it's hopeless. There's no redemption for your opponent. Write them off. Cast them aside.

"Intellectual dishonesty" is that kind of fatal character flaw. Might be more useful to examine Tom's tactics, which are a more concrete subject for discussion and more remediable. If we ask, there's a chance Tom could modify his behavior, but it's far less likely he could change his character. Be optimistic.

"Tactics" has a specific meaning, in terms of immediacy and fine-grained dodging and weaving. One tactic I've found particularly aggravating is drowning the conversation in the bathtub, strangling a thread with cheap shots and ridicule, from all appearances when a memorized talking point doesn't come readily to mind. Tom picks his battles carefully, and refuses to engage intellectually without a script.

And Bowser, I sympathize with your example. I can't tell you how many times Tom has dodged an issue by misstating what I said, always in a provocative and/or insulting way, in a transparent attempt to tie me down correcting him, and never quite making it to my real point. That's throwing up intellectual chaff; trailing a dead herring in hopes of throwing off the hounds.

We're both complaining that Tom doesn't debate fairly, but perhaps we're being a bit naive, or perhaps even disingenuous to take him at face value when he claims to be an objective intellectual, when we all know he's a partisan propagandist. C'mon, what right do we have to act surprised when he plays dirty? We know the scorpion's nature, and choose to carry him across the river anyway.

Aren't we enablers?