I strongly disagree with that too. If someone says “x is true” when x is not true, then saying “x is not true” does have value. Assuming you’re talking to a reasonable personI think the subtext of you asking that is you are saying that I am not “refuting the central point”. (I also disagree with that, but ymmv)
If you simply disagree with all that is said against you, then you cannot lose a debate, which is the archetypal way to learn from a debate. Therefore, your arguments should be made of parts, which can be attacked by a commenter.
I strongly disagree with that too. If someone says “x is true” when x is not true, then saying “x is not true” does have value. Assuming you’re talking to a reasonable person
I think the subtext of you asking that is you are saying that I am not “refuting the central point”. (I also disagree with that, but ymmv)
If you simply disagree with all that is said against you, then you cannot lose a debate, which is the archetypal way to learn from a debate. Therefore, your arguments should be made of parts, which can be attacked by a commenter.