Much to Eva's rightful chagrin, I argue far too much with people on the Internet, I have quite a bit of time on my hands at the mo; so more than usual I am exchanging verbals with idiots.
From such practice I have discovered one way of cutting back on the sheer volume of crap pointlessly exchanged in a virtual format, it is to use a technique mentioned by Leo McGarry in the seminal TV show The West Wing: if you don't accept the premise of the question then don't answer it.
Although I find this frustrates the hell out of the goons you're debating with it saves a lot of time, it also means that you don't end up validating the question's premise with the dignity of a response; which is usually based on personal prejudice and has no basis in fact, or getting into a mess arguing against something that it isn't even true. Rather like the premise that you should never argue hypotheticals, one I always try and stick to, again to the frustration of cretins.
Sticking to these rules is easier said than done though, a recent debate I was having about Fascism was a point in hand, there was no point me arguing about whether it stemmed from the Left or not because the premise of the question; that Fascism is from the Left, is total fiction, the premise in itself is wrong but by arguing it, I gave it credence.
It's like arguing about the Earth being flat, or there being a God, or those birther twats that think Obama isn't a US citizen...no point doing it; the premise is flawed and thus, arguing with someone using a flawed premise is pointless because they are obviously an ignoramus.
Come back next week when I explain that having the last word doesn't mean that you've won an argument, it just means that you've had the last word.