If there weren't such a plethora of superheroes named XYZ-man, this would be an easier post to title.
Among the standard tactics used for arguing in front of a sympathetic group is to build a facade of a position, referred to as a straw-man, and tear it down. This is very effective red-meat tactics, and a pure indication that someone is not trying to understand the value in the opposing position, just to argue against it.
Basic epistemological humility suggests that if there exist lots of smart people who believe stuff opposed to what you believe, they have good reasons for believing it. Hence, dismissing their position as stupid/evil/corrupt is (in an epistemologically sound company of mixed opinions) simply an admission of intellectual inadequacy.
The correct behavior, in idea-first, rather than tribe-first behavior, is to figure out what the opposite of the straw man is for the opposition. What is the strongest argument that they have? What is their steel-man position (Feel free to suggest a non-superhero name here)? And how is it true? If you're busy arguing for your side, this probably isn't a useful path (and probably no one is listening on either side), but if you're trying to understand the opposition, you start with the assumption that there are really smart, honest, ethical people on the other side. And that they believe differently than you do. And then you construct the best position you can for them. If it's easy to knock down, you failed...you're not smart enough. Find someone smarter to do it for you.