Persistently making relentless requests for evidence, explanations, or clarifications in a manner that appears polite but is intended to exhaust, frustrate, or derail the discussion rather than genuinely seek understanding. The requester maintains a veneer of civility while demanding that others continuously defend their positions.

Making inflammatory or leading statements in the form of questions to introduce ideas, insinuations, or accusations while maintaining plausible deniability by claiming to merely be 'just asking questions.' The questioner implies controversial claims without taking responsibility for asserting them.

Entering a discussion with ostensible sympathy or concern for a group or cause, only to undermine it by raising disingenuous doubts, advocating for counterproductive approaches, or demoralizing supporters while claiming to be 'on their side.' The speaker poses as an ally while actually advancing opposition talking points.

Dismissing or derailing an argument by attacking the tone or emotional expression of the speaker rather than addressing the substance of their claims. This involves demanding 'civility' or 'calm' as a precondition for engagement, often in contexts where emotional expression is a reasonable response to the issue being discussed.

Engaging in argument without genuine commitment to truth-seeking or rational discourse, using argumentation as a tool for other purposes such as exhausting opponents, creating confusion, maintaining power, or performing for an audience. The arguer doesn't believe their own arguments or care about their validity.

Systematically denying or distorting someone's perception of events, facts, or their own experiences to make them doubt their memory, perception, or sanity. This psychological manipulation tactic involves persistent contradiction of observable reality to gain power and control over the victim's sense of truth.