In debates, a common misconception people arouse is what many refer to as the bulls-eye sharpshooter fallacy. Simply stated as an analogy, imagine a shooter blowing a hole in the side of a barn and then running up to it and drawing a bulls-eye around it, proclaiming victory. What then is the philosophical significance of choosing interpretive criteria after you know the outcome? What does it say? In this type of post-hoc analysis, one clearly feels unsure of their strengths in advance and uses reinforcement techniques of pattern recognition and confirmation bias to delude themselves and others. While on the surface this seems remarkably weak and ill-contrived, it happens more often than we realize in a variety of situations. How you may ask do we avoid this type of self-delusion? Honesty. Brutal honesty. We need honesty with ourselves first, then with others. While many fully supportable arguments can be advanced in favor of the view that those swimming against the tides of trouble the world knows nothing about need active assistance rather than criticism, the best way to illicit helpfulness from others is through friendly admissions of humble limitations. But, can you be strong, right, and humble? Surely. It's quite difficult to maintain consistent composure during battles everyone insists you're losing, but remember that persistence wins over resistance every time. If you know you're right, stick to your guns. Never back down in the face of fear. I don't think anyone should overestimate the quality and accuracy of their own knowledge and claim victory prior to a thorough trial of all the evidence.