Yes, the migration of liberalism from soft socialism to hard socialism is mirrored in the de-evolution of their debate methods...they've gone from recognizing reductio ad absurdum
to embracing reductio ad Hitlerum
and the other oft played cards (racism, sexism, blah effing blah, yadda effing yadda) are just adjuncts to that intellectual laziness.
We all know their tired old games.
*They are never wrong, everybody else is.
*Inconvenient facts are belittled, sources defamed, people demonized and ultimately are ignored or made the butt of jokes funny only to them.
*Their immoral stances are portrayed as moral, therefore anything opposite is immoral no matter what.
*Compromise and bi-partisanship to them means their enemy caving into their demands.
*Any form of disagreement with their world view or statements riggers their ad hom gene and the personal demonization kicks into high gear, as does the bullying, foul language and pettiness.
Then again, why engage?
There is The Kurt Schlichter school of thought that says: Don't argue with them, attack them!
I like that better. If you enter into any situation with them and understand from the outset your are dealing with lying cheating hateful despicable low life buckets of filth...you will be in the right frame of mind to begin your campaign.
Go forth, and conquer!