There are sound reasons to use an attack on character, an appeal to tradition, or “pulling rank” as debate tactics. But aside from specific circumstances which are served by those tactics—when you want to fluster an opponent, when there’s need for immediate action, etc. etc.—a justification should make logical sense, and educate both parties on a sensible way to move forward; it should not simply advance one’s desire to stay in their ideological comfort zone.
Dirty Sci-Fi Buddha 
A very difficult feat to accomplish when at odds with another over what to do versus what “needs” to be done. Agreed, though. A “bullying” tactic truly serves no one regardless of the outcome of the situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well I like to say be “strategically aggressive.” When dealing with people, often times the most aggressive way to serve my strategy is to be nice, understanding, and logical. However, there are exceptions, and an easy go-to for this is imminent danger like self-defense, or the instance in WWII where John Basilone motivated his Marines to get over their fear and assault (which was the best option, because they were being pounded by fortified positions, and would eventually be picked apart) by kicking them and cussing at them.
LikeLiked by 1 person