submlimated lessons

While re-reading Nietzsche's Ecce Homo recently, I realized I'd sublimated a few of his guidelines after my initial reading 3 years ago.

The task is not to master all resistances, but only those against which one has to pit one's entire strength, suppleness, and mastery-at-arms--opponents who are equal...Equality before the enemy--first precondition for an honest duel....First: I attack only causes that are victorious--on occasion, I wait till they are victorious. Second: I attack causes only when there are no allies to be found, when I am standing alone--when I am compromising myself alone

I can't say I've thought of this explicitly over the last few years, but my intuition has more or less followed what is set out there. Anyone can criticize the weak spot, or identify the "fatal flaw" of an argument or system of thought. That's fine. But since when have fatal flaws actually proved to be fatal?

 Here's an important means of judging the quality of my own arguments: would I respect someone for changing their minds based on my arguments? If not, I haven't reached the heart of the matter.