Now... onto the second trick:
Normally, if someone is debating philosophy with you, it is fairly safe to assume that said person has an interest in logic, and it's valid application.
However, Stefantologists love to pretend that this assumption is an outrageous one.
When you point out a flaw in their logic, they say, "Why should I listen to logic? Why should I listen to anything you say, if one can't derive an 'ought' from an 'if'? Why should I care whether or not your/my argument is logical?"
Here, they are overlooking the obvious, and refusing to acknowledge the whole position we are defending in the first place.
Obviously, if they don't care about logic (and it's proper use), then there IS NO REASON why they SHOULD accept some fact of logic (such as the "is/ought dichotomy").
Likewise, there is no point then, in discussing the logical merits of an argument/philosophy (if that is NOT something they are personally interested in).
Just because something is logically valid, doesn't mean someone SHOULD accept it. Again, we CAN'T derive an "ought" from an "is".
Just because the dog bowl is empty, doesn't mean you should feed the dog.
What they are doing here, essentially, is being dick heads. You shouldn't have to begin every debate you have with somebody by FIRST establishing whether or not they have an interest in logic, and whether or not the goal of the exchange is to reach valid, logical conclusions. However, with Stefantologists, I guess that's what you have to do. You have to verify that they have a preference for logic, before the ethics debate can begin (which is just pointless and obnoxious).