I like this distinction, but it reminds me to cherish the people who don't require such confidence games.

Feynman has a famous anecdote about sitting around the table with senior scientists in contentious argument where he was perplexed because it was obvious to him who was right. They argued all sides, and ultimately agreed, having proofed the idea and its alternatives.

That's who I want on my team: people who can shake things out without needing to be right or needing others to be humble, and without playing games. After viability, that's my primary criterion for a position.

If you're trying to convince an audience, it matters how you treat the person you're arguing with. Don't be a jerk. People notice that, and judge you for it. They judge your position for it - perhaps not intellectually, but emotionally.

The best possible thing to do in that situation is to out-evidence them, out-argument them, and out-nice them. And really, if the facts are on your side, you shouldn't have to be a jerk or manipulative.