- Put your words in their mouth. Don't bother with elitist concepts like actual reductio analysis. That takes effort and consideration to accurately and honestly summarize the logical implications of a position or argument. Besides, the more absurd or outrageous the dishonest misrepresentation of your critic's position, the better. Phrases like "So what you're saying is..." and "In other words..." are quite handy, especially if you follow them with something completely different than what your critic has actually said. You can never go wrong by betting on your audience's ignorance or lazy unwillingness to verify your claim. Bonus points awarded for accusing others of "dishonesty" when they point out the strawman slaying that's occurring.
- Look! Over there! Something that they haven't condemned! You'd be surprised how many bloggers (by virtue of their lack-of-post-or-response) support Genghis Khan. Absence of proof is proof of absence, and a vacuum begs the assignment of attributes of convenience. The sillier you can make the accusation, the more of a conundrum it will present to your critic: Will they deny it, and divert discussion away from the topic to whether or not the accusation you've made is accurate, or will they let it stand without refutation, presenting you with a "didn't deny it" prize to parade around in the future? Either way, you win!
- Isn't there something that someone else belonging to some nebulous entity that you invent out of whole cloth (hey, they all look alike, don't they?) has posted in the past that you can misrepresent/cite out of context to hold your critic accountable for? No one will ever even notice that you're no longer addressing the the point they raised!
- There's no better time to resurrect past blogging grievances than now. It doesn't matter if your critic was involved or not. Why not let your contempt for your audience's intellect show by tossing that bright, shiny object with the expectation that they'll chase it away from the topic or critique at hand?.
- Phrases like "Oh my lord", "good lord", and "good fucking god" are your friends. Combined with ALL CAPS and ellipses... after... each... word, they are devastatingly effective argument winners and indicative of a superior intellect.
- Misrepresent sarcasm, mockery, or snark for actual position. No one's ever going to bother to check the original context, especially in the face of repeated assertion. If your critic objects, simply duplicate the misrepresentation in response... You'll always be one up on them!
- If asked for specific citations or actual data, don't ever, ever comply! Data, page numbers, and proper quotation attribution are your enemy. Instead, accuse the person making the request of being a liar or dishonest. Burden-of-proof-shift FTW! Primary school children may not even catch on to what you're doing!
- Wrap your position with an authority that overwhelmingly disagrees with it, then attack those that object to your position as being at odds with that authority. This might seem at face value to be problematic, but remember, strong, intelligent individuals bend authorities like science, jurisprudence and political studies to their will rather than submit to their "alleged" expertise.
- If all else fails, try to shift discussion away from what your critic is saying to whether or not they can say it.
Repeat combinations of the above as often as possible. Distractions repeated are distractions with traction!
EDIT: I really ought to have done this sooner, but big blogging thanks to Canadian Cynic for the attention and the traffic.