How to have an intellectual street-fight in good faith

There's been a lot of discussion about good-faith arguments over here lately, most recently in an anonymous comment here suggesting that I can't complain about a lack of good-faith discussion between liberals and conservatives and defend a clerk who made up a fake law in order to shame a fifteen-year old buying a pregnancy test:

If you're going to endorse lying, Helen, how can you expect anyone to debate you in good faith? And if you're going to walk it back like you did the paternal love thing, well, that's just hyperbolic attention-seeking on your part, not good faith either. How are we all going to get along with different religions if with some respect for the law?

A fair criticism, but not one I agree with. So, to the end of clarification, a handy list of things that are completely in-bounds in constructive debate:

1. Talking faster than you think. If not, I'm screwed. Sometimes this means I say things I don't mean, but sometimes it means that momentum carries me someplace I hadn't intended to go that ends up being far more interesting.

2. Being intentionally provocative. There's something exciting and volatile about debate that's lost when neither side gets heated. Provocation for its own sake can be counterproductive, certainly, but a tame argument will almost certainly fail to be productive at all.

3. Making stuff up. Well, sometimes. And sometimes not. In intellectual argument, almost never. In a street-fight, a rap battle, a self-consciously half-satirical bull session, or a flirtation disguised as an argument, I'm mostly down with it. (I would certainly never lie to you, gentle readers.)

4. Pie-throwing. Obviously.

One thing that's always out-of-bounds is denying the other side's moral integrity, as Matt Yglesias, Kathy G., and Chris Hayes have all been doing recently. Fortunately, I don't have to shut them down; Will Wilkinson already has.