Undue validation of poor arguments through refutation of those arguments is the leading cause of poor debates today. Here is an example: person A - "you suck" person B - "no i don't" Wrong answer. Person A never supported their claim so you don't need to refute it. By refuting their argument you are validating it for them. Here is an alternative response that I recommend: person A - "you suck" person B - "why?" Or if you are feeling especially confident: person A - "you suck" person B - *silence* + *blank stare* The non-response can be extremely effective at stopping a bad argument and it often results in the perpetrator backtracking and second guessing themselves. But the important thing is to not validate the bad argument by refuting it. And definitely don't do what most people do which is respond with both a refutation and another unsupported claim thereby perpetuating the poor debate. For example: person A - "you suck" person B - "no you" When you commit yourself like this it is very hard to salvage the debate because now both sides are damaged.