Suppose Person One disagrees with Person Two's argument on a topic. Person One may be using sound logic in their argument, but in an effort to discredit Person Two, Person One first starts by quoting Person Two completely in context with Person Two's original argument but with an added emotional spin.
Little by little, Person One steadily mutates the original quote and position of Person Two into something that is completely out of context and logically fallacious using a steadily increasing emotional theater. This theatrical performance is littered with Person Two's formerly logical argument, carefully repackaged through verbal "slight of hand", until the audience is fooled into believing that the contrived stance that Person One presents is really what Person Two believes.
This is done without ever arguing against Person One's argument until Person Two has mutated it into a sufficiently fallacious form that they can argue against where previously they could not in it's original form. Audience is fooled by being carried through the emotional theater and the fact that there is enough of the original argument left that it just seems that must have been what Person Two meant all along, thereby making Person Two deserving of having their argument (even tho no longer their actual argument) destroyed by Person One.
What is this tactic called and how do you defend against it using a FAR less verbose method than I just used to explain it?