Personally, I enjoy the rigorous application of logic involved in debate/argument. There's an almost mathematical purity to it when all sides are willing (and able) to make their case, point/counterpoint, etc. To a certain extent you need to be "an extremist" to be good at debating. Where the wheels typically come off in a debate is when someone goes ad hominem or ad lapidum, or a handful of other logical fallacies that become the equivalent of "Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber, you're glue..."
A number of years ago, I was debating a political issue with someone, and I could see how to demonstrate the clear fallacy of his position using the Socratic method. I started down that path, leading him step by step thorugh questions to the inveitable point where he would have to admit he was wrong. But I never got there. Every time I tried to make my next point he would cut me off. I couldn't get my next point in. When I complained about it, he eventually said, in almost these words, "I saw where you were going, and I saw that if you got there you would win, so I kept cutting you off so you coouldn't make the point. That's how I win arguments!"
A person who will cling to a belief he has come to realize is wrong and then use disruptive tactics to keep you from proving it is an extremist.