That is one thought-provoking, fun post Robert. I believe in the first half you suggest it is intellectually dishonest to characterize one's "opponent" with a character quality which is both morally deficient and not correctable.

And it the second half you suggest that knowing one's "opponent" has those qualities it is the fault of the knowing debater to both continue to debate and to act surprised when one's opponent pulls out his well-worn tactics.

Some comments on the immediate situation. Tom's black-and-white thinking has been well documented. A result of that is that he reads me say "your average high school graduate" and his mind truly reads it as "all". There is no middle ground. It's not conscious dishonesty, it's not lying from his internal frame of reference. Neither is it accurate, constructive, fair or objective. Externally, looking at what I said and his characterization, it is at best quite distorted. There is a disconnect from his perception and external observation by others. I wouldn't characterize that as admirable and often in frustration I have characterized it as "bad".

I think what is "enabling" is not confronting that tactic as it occurs in as clear a manner as possible. My post is intended to be an appeal to TB to abandon that tactic so that one could debate him, and I appreciate your pointing out that the use of the term "dishonesty" isn't constructive in this context. You are correct in that narrow application, and I wish I had toned it down.

Thanks a lot.

Arf