"yes I think that argumentation ethics, logically, is spot on. Practically though, it's of lesser use"
to be fair I think this is what Hoppe was intending to do... make a logical case. A lot of the counter arguments to AE (see Murphy and Callahan) seem to falsly imply that AE is something that it isn't, then argue against this strawman. For example; it is not a proof that it is IMPOSSIBLE to act against self ownership. As slavery has happened. There are still rapes, etc. Also, it's not some magic phrase that you simply utter to an aggressor and they immediatly see the error of their ways and become non violent.
I happen to think Stephan Kinsella clears a lot of this up in his rebuttal to Murphy and Callahan's critique of AE. (Kinsella gets a bad rap, IMO. he's known as an anti-IP guy but in reality he's SOOOO much more than this and has a very thorough understanding of ethics, praxeology, etc)