Possible start the answer with the consent or with the words of the Association: "of course," "you're right," and "other people say that, but we, you know..." etc. You are arguing with someone, and agree with him or separate him from other people, so he has no apparent reason to continue to provoke you. Next, you can somewhat change the response in their favor. For example, if you are asked, do not talk if you could be so because of the overly rich and not able to understand ordinary people, answer that you, of course, rich – rich spiritually.
Cling to the question and direct it against the source. You can find fault for wrong to put the emphasis, unsuccessfully used the word, every little thing. So you can turn the provocateur to the victim. There are more rough option would be to find some flaw in appearance or behavior of the interlocutor and to turn the conversation to him. So people often easy to confuse. In addition, you can pretend to misunderstand the question and start attacks on his companion.
Tell me what the question you asked the interviewee has already been discussed many times, so to answer it means to waste time. To say it with a bored look, as if the question has long been you are tired and you don't understand how he could make someone else interested. So you reduce the importance of the debate, and his companion, and will deter further attempts to provoke you.
If you offer two options, each of which will testify in your favor, or choose both, or looking for a third. For example, if during the interview you ask the question, what is more important, a good job or high salary, you can say that salary is one of motivation, and you would like to devote himself to the work and not worry about what your family have nothing to eat. If you offer the two extremes, choose something in between.