Contradictory debating

So there's two questions I want discussed here:

1) Do you think someone should use arguments/scalings/feats they disagree with for the sake of winning a debate?

2) Do you think its valid to use past arguments of someone against themselves (ex. I say I think supremacy quotes are irrelevant in one thread and use Malak > Kun in another) as long as they're both made within a short timespan? If so, how long untill past arguments should be dismissed?

The thread rules are up to the OP, so if one has no use of certain things, that doesn't have any bearing on any of thread.

If the person is vocal about devil's advocating, I don't see the issue in it. However, it's clear as day that someone is employing double standards in bad faith if their methodology changes every five minutes in service of a specific goal.

[hideedit]

1) I personally don't take issue with it if they do, provided their case for the thing they disagree with is solid.

2) I think it's perfectly valid to use someone's past arguments against them, yes. As for how long until they should be dismissed, I'm unsure, but I'd probably say until they are contradicted because assuming a timeframe - in my opinion - would just feel arbitrary.

Yeah. That's the point of debating, presenting arguments and convincing people. As long as you can back up your claims, it should be perfectly fine, even if you believe the exact opposite.

Can't really comment about the second one though. I don't think it is reasonable to mention it on a SS. Otherwise Azronger should automatically lose against The Ellimist. Though I do believe that you should always point out the hypocrisies on normal threads. Such as someone accepts G-Canon is supreme and then claims suited Vader > pre suit Vader.

Well, I don't think it's fine to use someone's past claims against them if they're obviously playing devil's advocate (e.g. Az vs Elm), but in a general forum discussion where they're adhering to their actual beliefs, I don't see why not.

1-dont really see the problem the case most be solid enough to convince people and this is not only on sw but in general debating 

2-it depends most can use this on his favour to win debates quickly others just stick to debunk it