Indeed. But in actuality*, this is because I think I understand the domain of the problem well enough to argue not just against your specific argument whatever it may be but every possible argument of that type. I could be wrong, of course, but that is what I thought was possible and what I tried to do. It's not preemptively dismissing something to give what ought to be a solid argument against it!

So far, for instance, Tony Dionys has provided the most interesting rejoinder, but I had already considered and dealt with all the points he brought up, just in less detail than I did when replying to him. (I forgot to mention it to him, but my intentional restriction to encountered/known men was also to help tackle the dispositional question. By focusing on that subset, one brings into far clearer view what claims one would have to be making to make a dispositional argument.) If I've made the basic argument and have to add a few specific refinements or demonstrations of applicability later, I'd consider that a success. Or you might say something that either blows my argument out of the water, or renders it hopelessly irrelevant, or reveals that actually I agree with or am convinced by your position, in which case it was an ill-advised thing to do on my part to argue in advance.

* This is my claim of the actuality. Obviously you aren't in a position to check, nor am I to prove it. So it's flavor text only.