Now, these terms certainly indicate the feeling that I am 1. superiour, 2. the objective judge, and 3. that it should be my task to better the other person.
I´m not sure I want to go there, in the first place. These aren´t my children, or something.
And since we are talking "debate" here, I fail to see how these concerns have a place here, anyway (see above).
Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".
Anyway, if you want to bring character into the play - I think all I can do is watch my own character (and typically, that´s hard enough.
).
I have a couple of options (I can point out the irrelevancy of the "superfluous" rethorics, I can simply ignore those parts, and I also have the option of saying "Thanks for the game so far, but, sorry, I don´t like the way you play it." and go away.)
I don´t think it should be my concern what the other person takes home from my response (this is unpredictable, anyways - I am not even sure that leaving always means "reinforcement"; just as likely it can cause the other person frustration.). I like to think that watching my own integrity and values is all and the best I can do.
(And again: from a "meta-argumentative" ethics pov, I personally feel that only
insane idiots are willing to engage in a debate, in the first place.
)