This article seems to me to conflate two things: how to have an exploratory discussion between two opposing viewpoints and how to win an argument.
For example, in an exploratory discussion, using your opponent's terms can lead to quicker definition of those terms, and less talking past one another. On the other hand, when trying to win an argument, allowing your opponent to frame the debate (either by using their terms or addressing/refuting their central points) can be the worst possible strategy!
I suspect that exploratory discussions where both parties are genuinely disinterested are rare in most contexts.
You shouldn't be trying to win arguments. That's the root of all argumentation evil, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, that's one aspect of debate competition I really despise, the fetishizing of winning arguments. (OTOH, the way debate teams work you're forced to fully understand opposing viewpoints in a way that few people ever do.)
For example, in an exploratory discussion, using your opponent's terms can lead to quicker definition of those terms, and less talking past one another. On the other hand, when trying to win an argument, allowing your opponent to frame the debate (either by using their terms or addressing/refuting their central points) can be the worst possible strategy!
I suspect that exploratory discussions where both parties are genuinely disinterested are rare in most contexts.