I think the point is that your "opponent" might agree to this if you express openness to it from the start by showing them you understand and share their deepest motives, but they will almost certainly be closed to you if they perceive themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be under attack.
It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage.
This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.
It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage.
This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.