What is the philosophical basis of the notion that "bullying" someone out of a belief is inherently unacceptable?

The very first thing I heard in my first philosophy class was that "you can't bully someone out of a belief." This struck me as odd because it seems like the ultimate goal of philosophy is to bully people out of their beliefs. In other words, if we are successful in refuting someone's argument, then we are in some sense bullying them out of a belief. This notion has been growing in my mind ever since I heard it. The more I hear people use it, the more I bristle at it.<br><br>Where does it come from? I can't imagine that any philosopher has explicitly endorsed it, and it has the strong whiff of a postmodern notion. The idea seems to be that argumentation is inherently hostile and coercive when it is successful, and that this is bad for some reason. In this view, if I am so good at making arguments that someone cannot respond to them, then I am being tyrannical and unacceptable.<br><br>This seems like absolute rubbish to me. If someone cannot defend their belief, then that is evidence that they are wrong. If I cannot defend my belief, that is evidence that *I* am wrong. This is how knowledge and understanding are advanced. And yet, with great regularity, I see this line of reasoning shut down productive conversations and debates, often to defend some foolish or bigoted belief.<br><br>So I guess what I'm asking is, where did this bullshit notion come from, and how should we respond to it?