The counter to this that I use is fencing them in. You have to exert control on the debate. Which sounds harder than it is?
In truth, when they start flouncing around with half truths, you need to cut in with “You’re making a lot of claims you’re not backing up, you need to deal materially with the proof before it’s believable.”
Everytime they try to shoot off into abstraction, you need to drag them back the material.
“Well what about Venezuela-”
“What about Venezuala? Do you know anything about it? What’s your specific critique? Can you tell me what leaders and parties are involved? Can you talk about the policies that specifically led to your problem?”
That works. You’ve stopped them. They have to address your demands for evidence or they look like an idiot. You need to do this for every point they make. If they try to make an abstract point like: “human nature is inherently selfish-” you demand they prove it. Examples like “oh well this study-” which study? By who? Are they credible? In cases like the Stanford prison study, you can refute them by knowing the study didn’t properly randomize it’s subjects.
Force them to prove every point they make by asking exhaustive questions. Don’t let them move on with the debate. Refuse to move forward until they address your questions, imply that their not answering is a sign of a weak debater.
snowghoul
theartofmadeline
gummygunk
blakekathryn
jacobvanloon
titsay
baratheonpilled
izzy806
annaxmalina
dededos
romaincrisis
