Not sure if it's significantly different from DH6, but Karl Popper's style of debate might be termed DH7.
It's similar to DH6, but first you patch up the opponent's arguments to make the best possible case. Then you find the central point in that case, even if the author doesn't explicitly state it. It's what he really meant to say and might indeed have said if he was on good form. (If there's a stronger or more general version of that point you might select that instead.)
Actually I thought of making DH7 something similar: not merely refuting what your opponent said, but also explaining what led him to make that mistake. But I wasn't sure, so I left it out.
Isn't psychoanalyzing the other person (and considering him an 'opponent'), rather than focussing impersonally on ideas, more the stuff of the low numbers than the top?
True it could help him, but only if appreciated. It frequently won't be in public, or between strangers. And it runs a danger of polluting the main discussion. Any personal help is strictly a separate issue than which of the original ideas is true -- the person being helped could still have been right.
If it's a logical argument, you can explain where he went wrong without psychoanalyzing him. Just point out the step in his reasoning that's fallacious, or the premise which is incorrect.
Most people don't take well to having their fallacious reasoning questioned, but they do appreciate having incorrect premises pointed out, particularly if it's done politely.
If you need to psychoanalyze the other person to explain the flaw in his ideas, then chances are you're arguing over opinions rather than facts or conclusions. Opinions, by definition, can't be right or wrong, so you're wasting your time.
That's a good point that you should patch up their argument first. But also, you shouldn't think of it as their argument. It is an argument. If you want to find the truth you should look for the best arguments on all sides, not refute a shoddy one.
Not sure if it's significantly different from DH6, but Karl Popper's style of debate might be termed DH7.
It's similar to DH6, but first you patch up the opponent's arguments to make the best possible case. Then you find the central point in that case, even if the author doesn't explicitly state it. It's what he really meant to say and might indeed have said if he was on good form. (If there's a stronger or more general version of that point you might select that instead.)
And _then_ you carefully demolish it.