Here I'm going to talk about some dirty tactics that bad people often use to make observers feel that they've won the argument without actually finding a flaw in your reasoning.
- The untouchable lie
- The gift ploy
This technique consists of making a false factual assertion that you would know and that would win the argument if it were true, and then when your opponent calls you on it, you say "Are you accusing me of lying?" and shame your opponent for this ad hominem attack.
When someone uses this tactic on you, the best way I've found to counter it is to point out two things: firstly, that if no one can be accused of lying then everyone will lie, and secondly, lying to win an argument is not as severe an offense as most people think it is. After all, if you're having an argument about something like politics or religion, you can even argue it's morally right to lie if it convinces someone to believe something less harmful. Still, there's no telling how closed to reason the audience might be. I can only wish you good luck if anyone ever plays this card on you.
This is an inflammatory tactic where you comment on how the debate is going; for example, saying "No offense, but you're doing a very poor job arguing for your claim" or "Hopefully this time you can make a less fallacious argument" after giving a rebuttal. It's especially nasty in verbal debates, where it takes up both time and space in your opponent's mind, making it artificially harder for your opponent to represent their own argument.
As for how to beat this, pointing out what your opponent is doing probably won't end well in a verbal argument. They'll just take the opportunity to sidetrack you into a sub-argument about whether they are using dirty argument tactics or not, which isn't what you want - you want to focus on the actual debate. The only thing to do that I see is just keep arguing validly and try to keep your cool. Don't give into the temptation to flame them - it's what they want, because it turns the audience against you.
This is one that mostly applies to in-person arguments, and especially to non-intellectual debates, where after a heated argument, you bring someone a gift, often food, and once they take a bite you make another foray into the argument. It's bullshit because it uses what is ostensibly a gift just to put the opponent in a low position where they feel like they owe you a favor, and leverage that to win the argument. And because it's ostensibly a gift, it makes them feel guilty if they call you on it. I really haven't found any half-decent way to counter this technique :(