In any debate, there are two sides, the claimant and attacker.
(For some elaboration on these and other debating guidelines I refer you to the Guidelines Section)
In debating circles, often the claimant will shift the burden of proof, and claim some or other fallacy of logic. The Claimant, however has shifted the burden of proof, which is itself a fallacy. It is up to the claimant to provide reasoning for his claim. It is up to the attacker to show why the reasoning is faulty. It is easy for the claimant to ignore that and to simply criticize the attacker. This is faulty logic. The Claimant cannot attack, he can only defend his position against the attack. If the attacker presented a new position, that must be dealt with separately, but the claimant's defense must withstand the attacker's attack, if the claimant did not defend his position, and show why the attacker's attack is fallacious, the claim falls away, and the position, initially presented is no longer tenable.
In addition, on a forum where debate is written, and not spoken, making claims and presenting arguments is easy. But to show why or where the claim is faulty is on the onus of the person attacking. If an argument is circular, it needs to be spelled out - which argument is circular? Why? How? It is no use simply stating: 'Oh your argument is circular' That is is lazy, and not useful. Better stated is: 'Your argument regarding "X" is circular, because you assumed "Y", and that is already part of the understanding in "X"'.
The same is true for all debate - cite the difficulty, and then present the reasoning behind why it is fallacious. Generalized, ambiguous arguments are not helpful, nor do they present any real objection, but rather obfuscate the process.
