The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage into a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic. Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution....Have you noticed any good eristic lately?
According to Schopenhauer, Eristic Dialectic is mainly concerned to tabulate and analyze dishonest stratagems, so that they may at once be recognized and defeated, in order to continue with a productive dialectic debate. It is for this very reason that Eristic Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and not objective truth, for its selfish aim and purpose.
ADDED: I've discovered that what I like to do is something that's just about the opposite of eristic. I like to have conversations in which I'm looking for the truth and I don't care about whether what I'm saying is working to persuade anyone. It's simply a performance of truth-seeking for its own sake and with the full freedom to say everything without concern for whether it drives the reader/listener even further from what I think is the right answer. What's the Greek word for that?