Writing as much as I do in places where anyone is free to take a shot at me, I have been tried on many occasions by people who argue nothing substantive against what has been said, but simply give off noxious rhetorical gases calculated to blind the audience so they can crow about how smart they are. From time to time I stop to explain what they're doing to put readers on guard. Here's another dodge used by a correspondent that I recently remembered:
"In what you said you completely ignored this and this and this and this and this and this, thus proving both your ignorance and malice."
There's no way to respond to this–it's a bottomless pit. If you choose, for example, to speak to even one of the points he said you ignored, the same accusation will be leveled on the next level down, and so on ad nauseam. You haven't said everything that is possible to say, from which it may be inferred that you are ignorant of the subject, and that your ignorance arises from malice. It is conveniently ignored that in order to say one thing, even God has to refrain from saying a universe of other things.