IIRC a good rule of thumb is asking them to elaborate on their point or asking them questions related to their point because it gives you attack surface, and they may also realise that they are wrong when they think about the issue in depth:
>you said man-made climate change is a hoax because "water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 anyway"
>yes
>but the data shows that the global average temperature is going up. do you think it's because atmospheric water vapor content is going up? why would that be?
>I don't think it's going up
>then it can't be responsible for the rise in temperature, can it? CO2 is also a greenhouse gas however, albeit less potent, and its concentration has been increasing in the atmosphere. why do you think then that it's not responsible for global warming?
...
My example is not the best but you get the idea.
How do I debate the retarded? Is the only way to win not to play?
Jacob Moore
Connor Rivera
>I don't think it's going up
I meant the water vapor content.
Chase Morris
>tfw too intelligent to argue with people