is being condescending ever a good tactic?

[Mudhammam]

Condescension is not a rational tactic, which therefore makes it only appropriate in an irrational conversation. If an apologist wants to put forth a rational argument, then a rational response is fitting; if he or she would like to make an emotional or subjective case, appealing to exclusive divinities and miracles over and above the reasonable rejection of said objects, and furthermore wishes to imply that such subjective experiences are expected to be taken as coercive arguments to the fair-minded intellect, condescension is initiated on their part and should be returned in kind.

Examples:
1. "I believe such and such forms an inductive justification for my faith but understand and appreciate the value of disagreement" = not condescending and not deserving of condescension.
2. "I believe such and such forms an inductive justification for my faith and agree that anyone who doesn't see it such and such a way is being willfully disobedient to the truth and deserves merciless penal retribution for their errors because that is what my faith demands" = very condescending and deserving every bit of condescension returned.