What is the proper response in a debate when your opponent ignores your counterarguments?

Question

I keep running into a situation in debates and arguments. My opponent makes an argument (or counterargument), and I carefully disprove all of my opponent's points. However, instead of addressing my counterarguments or following up on the points I refuted, my opponent makes new points to support their argument. Sometimes, they will even recycle points I already refuted. Thus, I end up having to play an endless game of whack-a-mole where I'm constantly knocking down my opponent's argument while they're ignoring mine.

What is the proper response to this? The debate is a public discussion for others to read.

As an example, in a public discussion I started about vaccine hesitancy, an individual claiming to take a neutral position on the subject said that vaccines have 10 times the legal mercury content.

1. I explained to him on multiple points why this isn't the case and provided a link to an FDA report on the matter proving my counterargument. Having taken a year of chemistry in college, I also explained why the mercury scare in vaccines was misguided in the first place.
2. He ignored all of these points entirely and later acted like saying something so factually untrue was no big deal.
3. He proceeded to make a new argument that vaccines should not be so universally supported because vaccines cause humanity to become dependent on them to survive, and unvaccinated children who die from illnesses ultimately improve the gene pool. (I'm trying my best to represent his arguments here in the best of light).
4. Avoiding the trap of arguing the moral high ground, I proceeded to expose all of the flaws in this argument and prove that taking the "natural selection" approach is not the better alternative to improving global health.
5. He ignored each rebuttal and proceeded to make another point to prove his argument. This started a cycle where I knocked down each point only for him to make another while failing to address the flaws exposed in his argument.
6. Realizing the debate was going no where, I decided to simply tear down his credentials to make such an argument in the first place, saying he has no scientific expertise or education to on natural selection and immunology make an argument calling for killing children to improve the gene pool. This gradually brought the discussion to a standstill.

While my objective was initially to educate this individual and clear up a common misunderstanding, the debate degenerated to a point where the best I could do was tear down his arguments for others to see. However, I feel I did not respond properly and left the argument feeling like I could have done better.

What could I have done better here? What is the proper approach to responding an opponent that keeps ignoring your counterarguments? What could I have done better to end this argument?

Answer 1

Simplify your statements by providing only one argument per statement. Rules of thumb are:

• Resist the temptation to fight all of the opponent's wrong points (address only one of his arguments/claims/points) and
• resist the temptation to bring out your full arsenal of arguments from several perspectives (provide only one counterargument).

Pick one point and give one counterargument per statement/comment/message of yours.

And then demand to stay on topic. If he strays or ignores your point and starts a new argument, then insist on finishing the other argument first. Dismiss everything irrelevant he brings and refuse to address it. Don't fall for his (maybe unconscious) attempts to misdirect you and to not finish your winning line of arguments. Respond with something like:

That is a good argument; but a different argument. Before moving there, can we agree that [your first argument] is flawed/wrong/false?

A non-simplified statement from your side enables your opponent to cherry-pick, direct the focus to his choosing (to the weakest of your points), ignore un-addressed parts and "hide" in the cluster of points that were made. Furthermore, longer responses are harder to keep track of by the viewing audience. A short response will keep your opponent on his toes, unable to settle with his wrong argument, because there is nowhere else to move the focus.

Answer 2

My version is:

"Dear opponent, stop, if you constantly leave the answer you do not belong here, our conversation is useless and let's not spend more time on empty negotiations ..." Edit

"Dear opponent, if scientists doctors and microbiologists could not come up with vaccines against plague, cholera or smallpox, the epidemics of which were spread in Europe and Asia more than 100 years ago, perhaps neither you nor I could talk to each other. I would ask you to remember this."

Answer 3

The silva rhetorica site has this to say about the audience as an encompassing term in rhetorical discourse:

All rhetorically oriented discourse is composed in light of those who will hear or read that discourse. Or, in other words, rhetorical analysis always takes into account how an audience shapes the composition of a text or responds to it.

If one considers a debate as a form of rhetorical discourse where one is trying to persuade an audience rather than the opponent, what you should do is whatever will keep the audience agreeing with your position.

It doesn't matter whether the opponent agrees or not. Anything the opponent does should offer you an opportunity to bring your message to the audience in a novel way. That may seem like "an endless game of whack-a-mole" because you have been through the argument many times, but it may be the first and last time some members of that particular audience will hear the argument.

---

Audience "Silva Rhetoricae" rhetoric.byu.edu

Answer 4

In my opinion, but I may be wrong of course. First you tried to play an argumentum ad verecundiam, showing some authority about the subject but you ran short of it. Put more emphasis into this, as here you introduce yourself to the audience and set your credentials for them not only exposing facts supporting your counter argument but your knowledge about the subject what is quite important, it adds weight to your following words. (As said above by others talk to the audience)

He kept taking some advantage ignoring your counter arguments and giving some justification to his arguments (eg. evolutionism) here you could just exaggerate his argument, making it sound ridiculous rather than trying to reason with him, (quick reference to Darwin awards for instance) as at that stage you probably saw that he wouldn’t appeal to reason, it would just be loosing your time. By then he would probably get angry, what exposes a clear weakness, by making him angry you take advantage, let him go wild because he will be probably throwing some more ‘pearls’ of nonsense that then you can easily refute, and keep going with your heavy facts.

Finally you used an argumentum ad personam, attacking him personally and so discrediting his knowledge, good move but keep it as a last resort. You don’t want him to become an enemy or yes, who knows?

Well it’s easy to give advice but it requires a quick wit for the moment of the debate, I know.

Answer 5

His position wasnt a stack of argument all resting on each others so that destroying one would invalidate the others, but merely a bunch of uncoupled claims.

So in this case, there is nothing wrong with having to rebut a series of arguments.

I think you did well attacking his credentials but your attack, in order to avoid the argument from authority fallacy should have clearly reminded him that he didnt defend his series of claims because he couldnt, and he coulnt because he had no scientific background. Therefore, lacking too much critical thinking in the area, he should venture cautioustly in the topic and be aware of disinformation.

Answer 6

The Socratic Method is one possible way to present your arguments to difficult people.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method)

This method has the advantage of being rooted in canon philosophy.

Answer 7

my objective was initially to educate this individual and clear up a common misunderstanding

My experience is that some individuals do not care a iota about being right. They believe, or pretend to believe, a certain set of propositions, and exposing why such set of propositions is factually mistaken, morally deplorable, or internally inconsistent, won't make them budge. Either they are existentially committed to their beliefs, and cannot abandon them except at huge psychological costs, or they are simply trolling and testing to what point they can keep an argument they know is factually wrong for the sake of it.

If that is the case, and there is no audience, I suggest you leave it at that, unless you are yourself interested in improving your rhetorics or in better understanding how this kind of mind works.

If there is an audience, and their preferred rhetoric tactics is to bring up new unrelated arguments, without acknowledging that the previous one is unsustainable, then make that explicit, for the sake of the audience: "since you recognise that vaccines do not have an unsafe level of mercury, let's address your next concern". This helps the audience keeping a score, and if he were to come back to this claim at any point, it makes it easier to point out that he had already conceded the point, lest he counters that concession immediately.

If the discussion is long enough, eventually your oponent will either go back to an already made argument, or use an argument that is mutually exclusive to one he has already used. So it may be useful to keep track of his arguments, so that repetitions and contradictions can be pointed out and used to demonstrate the inconsistency or even the bad faith of the argumentation.

At some point, it may be possible to conclude that the oponent uses apparently rational arguments as a disguise for a fundamentally faith-based position. In other words, the oponent is not against vaccines because of the arguments he brings into discussion, but uses those arguments, irrespective of merit, to support an apriori position. Pointing this out may be useful if there is an audience.