It is always easier to argue from the negative side—criticizing other people’s actions, dissecting their motives, etc. And that is why most people will opt for this. If they had to describe a positive vision of what they want in the world, or how they would accomplish a particular task, this would open them up to all kinds of attacks and criticisms. It takes effort and thought to establish a positive position. It takes less effort to work on what other people have done, and poke endless holes. It also makes you look tough and insightful, because people delight in hearing someone tear an idea apart. Facing these negative-mongers in a debate or argument is infuriating. They can come at you from all angles: hit you with sarcasm and snide comments, weave all kinds of abstractions that can make you look bad. If you lower yourself to their position, you end up like a boxer throwing punches into thin air. These opponents give you nothing to hit. (In war, it is always easier to hold ground than take ground.) Your task is to force them off this position by getting them to commit to some positive position. Now, you have a target. If they resist or refuse to do this, you can attack them for this resistance.
Daily Law: Avoid the temptation to fight back on the same level as the opponent. You must always shift the terms of the battle onto the terrain of your choice. In that moment of shifting, you have the initiative and the upper hand.
Robert Greene, “Only the Dull and Stupid Fight Head-on: Some Strategic Thoughts,” powerseductionandwar.com, July 15, 2007