And I still get irritated with people doing that in everyday conversation. The conversation and the thing being discussed is obviously not as important as it is in a serious debate, but in my opinion (and the articles EXPLAINS my opinion) the principle of "victory by silence" doesn't change, and the principle can still be likened to saying "Ha! That argument doesn't count for anything! Because, see? Look, I can just pretend I didn't hear it!" and "Ha! That argument isn't even worth my time to reply to! But just take my word for it that I do have a devastating retort that puts me into the 'winning' position! Ha! I've won!" as well as likened the political cartoon that I posted in the end, and every other thing that I've said which resembles a "holier-than-thou" tone. Obviously, since it's an everyday, non-serious conversation, the consequence of doing so is much smaller ("Boo hoo! This guy thinks that red is better than blue! Nooooo!") but the principle of why I think "victory by silence" is dumb, still remains, and is thus a fair point to mention. Explaining why I think the principle is dumb (with political cartoons, condescending paraphrases, or whatever) (regardless of the magnitude of the consequences of exploiting a "victory by silence" fallacy, which is obviously dependent on the thing being debated) requires the "holier-than-thou tone".

Sometimes it's not possible to make a point, or share your opinion on a topic without being condescending. Even so, everyone obviously has the right to share their opinion (without sugar-coating it) in order to make the full effect of their point - which is a right that I have exercised. Now does that mean being needlessly aggressive and use name-calling and other hostilities? No, that should be avoided, because it is unproductive. However, the condescending arguments that I have made were not unproductive, as they demonstrate the principle behind why I support my ideology.