What objective criteria can be used to judge philosophical refutations?
Say for example that someone is writing a criticism of Karl Popper. What are ways to reject the criticism without getting into a detailed debate of the sort that this site doesn't allow?
the criticism could be of a position that isn't actually Popper's position
the criticism could be one Popper already answered in a book, and the critic wasn't aware of, or chose not to deal with, all Popper's writing.
the criticism might not include some basic aspects of a criticism like saying what idea it's criticizing and what's wrong with the idea
the "criticism" could just be an assertion with no explanatory reasoning. (bad reasoning would be debatable, but none would be more clearly a bad criticism)
the criticism could have a basic logical error
the broader goal is to seek out criticisms of Popper, Rand and others that don't suck, and define some criteria for "don't suck" that will be acceptable on this site.