I think this is largely addressed to political and religious topics where prior commitments to specific conclusions mean that at least one party is not updating their beliefs based on anything they hear in the conversation.
The bit about “If one of your arguments is shown to be faulty will you stop using that argument (with everyone)?” seems to be pointed directly at creationists and other religious apologetics, who tend not to follow that little rule.
I think this is largely addressed to political and religious topics where prior commitments to specific conclusions mean that at least one party is not updating their beliefs based on anything they hear in the conversation.
The bit about “If one of your arguments is shown to be faulty will you stop using that argument (with everyone)?” seems to be pointed directly at creationists and other religious apologetics, who tend not to follow that little rule.