Most of the time the stuff we’re arguing about really is what we’re arguing about.

It’s easy to play it out, to slide down that slippery slope, take it all the way to the inevitable conclusion. And stake a claim out there. For them. That what they’re saying is so unbelievably ridiculous. To assume we aren’t actually talking about what we’re literally talking about.

We think I’m talking about this, but you are way out in Crazytown!

We generally blame this on partisanship. I suppose that is partly true. But it is also rarely something we all do.

It is something some of us do to ruin a negotiation.

Examples are many. Modest revisions to immigration law are on the table, and somebody accuses the other of wanting open borders. Or else someone is coming for your guns. Maybe all the elementary schools will be teaching law-school theories.

Imagine we’re trying to make something in the kitchen. And the thing we’re actually debating is whether the recipe calls for two tablespoons of water or three. That’s what’s on the table. Then someone comes along and says we need to add none. And we’re all like, that doesn’t even make sense. And then they say that “the other side” wants to just open the tap and let the water flow.

But that is precisely when we lose sight of what is on the table for debate. In Robert’s Rules of Order, we only debate what is actually on the table. Not someone else’s flights of fancy.

Little of what we actually want to debate is extreme. Most of the time it is ridiculously modest. What is extreme, however, are the accusations.

Most debates don’t end up here and we shouldn’t assume they will. However, this is a move, a tactic. And its purpose isn’t to further debate, but to end it in confusion.

When dealing with the extreme hypothetical, the best response is not to play along.