Do you argue as a Rapist, Seducer, or Lover?

As I enjoy and participate in conversations here, I'm reminded of a great article I read about how we argue. It separates our styles of debate into three behaviors. Are you a rapist who simply must be right at all costs? Are you a seducer who will deceive or use trickery to win the fight? Or a lover who argues simply to learn from the argument itself? Here's the link to the pdf if you're interested...

Wayne Brockriede's "Arguers As Lovers"

I'll just say that I could probably be a little more lover and a lot less seducer

That link does not appear to be working for me .

It will not work for me either, sadly. I perceive myself arguing like the lover if I may self diagnose

I am not certain this is the same pdf you were trying to link to, but it is a good one.
http://www2.comm.niu.edu/faculty/kwhedbee/dissoilogoi.pdf

I just like the discussions. To say arguing to me means a concern for an outcome.

reminds of the poker player character . . . but he had 4 stances . . lol

Holder, Folder, Runner, Hider . . .

linkless Hider . . . or one of the Talking Heads . . lol . . song without a dance . . a cause without a purpose? . . lol
i dunno

Apologies for the inactive link. I've attached the actual PDF here. Hopefully it works this time...

Essentially the article asserts that an arguer as a rapist will impose their will and opinion on others by force and refuse to accept any counter argument. A seducer will lie, flatter, or trick someone into agreeing with their point of view. A lover will discuss a topic openly and integrate the argument of the other into their own if it makes sense. The object is to learn.

I imagine we all use a little bit of each depending on who we are arguing with and what our emotional state is at the time.