Final answer:
Apologists often resorted to disparaging the opposition's points to assert their positions. Employing fair and objective summaries of arguments rather than just critiquing the opposition can make one's arguments stronger and avoid discrediting speakers for the sake of discourse.
Step-by-step explanation:
Many of the apologists had to resort to disparaging the points made by the opposition leaders just to have a say. This tendency to undermine the opposition can take various forms, one of which is questioning the motivation of the opposition to suggest conflicting interests and thus discredit their character or argument. It's important to note that when summarizing opposing arguments, it is more effective to be charitable and present each argument fairly rather than resorting to caricature or presenting a "straw man" argument.
Doing so indicates that one's argument can stand against strong opposition and is not merely capable of defeating a weak adversary. In history and political discourse, such tactics have been used to silence or marginalize viewpoints, as seen in the effort to discredit reformers or in the way historical figures have been criticized or mocked in literature.
Therefore, it is crucial for meaningful discourse to critically assess and address the content of opposition arguments, instead of resorting to methods that aim to discredit the speaker.