Future Fallacies
To avoid an issue in a debate is really a fallacy. You can answer the question, by saying: "Yes, I agree" or "No, I disagree", but you can also say: "This can be answered later". This is not answering the question, that is agreeing that the question stands and the assumption the questioner is basing himself off of stands, until proven incorrect.
For example:
Steve suggests Statement "X". Statement "X" is built on the assumption X'. If Jack argues against X, and says X is faulty because X' lacks sufficient evidence, Steve's response is that that X' is a good assumption, it however cannot be shown to be true now, but it will at some future time. This avoids the point entirely. Jack's argument against X' means that X' is now unproved, and remains unproven. If X' is unproven, then X cannot stand up to scrutiny and has to be removed as a good argument.
Steve claims that strawberries are green. Steve assumes that strawberries are green, because he has never seen red strawberries. Jack argues that since Steve lives in the North pole and has never seen strawberries at all, the assumption that strawberries are green lacks sufficient evidence. Steve argues however, that at some future time, he will be vindicated and strawberries will be shown to be green. Steve is avoiding the question and point of lack of sufficient evidence. Since Steve has no experience outside the north pole and the color of various fruits and vegetables, it stands to reason that Steve's knowledge of this area is severely lacking. It makes utterly no difference if Steve is right or not (maybe Steve has a different definition of green, or that Steve was only talking about unripened strawberries). At this point the statement is wrong, because it lacks sufficient evidence. Jack is in a position of authority, he has shown that Steve's underlying assumption is fallacious because it lacks sufficient evidence, that is enough cause to assume that the assumption and statement are wrong.
We live by this principle in real life. Cellphones are considered to be safe by many people, and the tests for cancer and radiation that have been conducted, are not cause for alarm because they lack sufficient evidence, to be shown to have affects on human health. (This Article from the Cancer Institute suggests this).
We should therefore think very carefully before we cast an argument into the wastepaper basket of "future proofs". That avoids the issue, and really is an admission of defeat because the argument stands, and the assumption it attacks has failed to be proven.
