I will take the time now to identify my dialectic of preference in my demonstrations. It opposes the Hegelian
Thesis + Antithesis ---> Synthesis
and the conspiratorialist
Problem + Reaction ---> Solution
For lack of a better term, let us call this the Johnian dialectic
positive extrema + negative extrema ---> middle
+ extrema/- extrema ---> middle
It starts with a controversial question. I will begin to paint the extremes for the reader. I will show the absurdity of either position, let us say as if on a continuum <--x----|----x-->
My proposition then turns to the absurdity, indeed, the equality of the common position or of my opponent's position with the absurdity which I have painted. It is a rhetorical slight of hand that is predicated on the idea that any position which is contrary to reality is an absurd position, and if this is true, it is a simple extension of principles of logic to show how absurd it is.
The middle then is the white rabbit produced from my little hat, the embodiment of the middle of the road. It's not the ideological answer I present, but one which relies most heavily on the evidence provided, a liberal answer. By representing any view which is contrary to what is revealed through the Word as absurd and unrealistic, that is, showing its overlap with what is agreed to be absurd by reasonable persons, then the approach I offer to the debate with that person is to show that logically there is no less absurdity in the incorrect notion they cling to. Simply put, what is false is absurd because it lacks correspondence to the reality to which it speaks to. My middle is irresistible and seductive, anything in opposition is absurd.
Put in terms of an actual situation or controversy arising from the church: It makes no difference whether you believe one's laughing uncontrollably or barking like a dog is somehow a more believable manifestation of the Spirit than those who say gold teeth appears in peoples' mouths or gold dust falls from Heaven when a "prophet" walks in the room. They are both ridiculous for anyone to say and I will tell you that. I won't cede that one makes more sense than another as neither are plausible and neither correspond.