We are most likely to get angry and excited in our opposition to some idea when we ourselves are not quite certain of our own position, and are inwardly tempted to take the other side.

The remark links vehemence in argument to inner ambivalence: the more a person senses that an opposing idea has some pull or plausibility, the more emotionally charged their rejection may become. Anger and excitement function as psychological defenses—ways of drowning out doubt, shoring up identity, and signaling certainty to oneself and others. Read this way, the quote is less about the opponent’s bad faith than about the speaker’s insecurity, suggesting that disproportionate outrage can be diagnostic of unresolved questions. It also implies an ethical counsel: when we feel ourselves becoming heated, we might pause and ask what uncertainty or temptation the dispute is exposing.