Myself, I have found it is easier to re-examine my “foundations” and supporting structures when the challenge to it is a gentle one rather than an outright assault. When that occurs and the strength of the argument is wanting, I feel I must either concede utterly and bear my throat or defend it as vigorously as was the Alamo. O.O

Personally, I always thought of debate like the practice of martial arts where different ideas are the strength of technique and the debate approach like the style being practiced; some use a more aggressive tact, perhaps even to excess (“Strike first! Strike hard! Show no mercy, sir!”) whereas others adopt a more defensive fashion, not unlike Akihito, where the combatant deflects approaching blows, only making headway when the opponent is caught flatfooted or becomes defeated by his own charge.

Your analogy works for me better though, because it speaks more to the quality of what is being defended, rather than merely how.