Yesterday, Hemant wrote about a student group that came up with a brilliant way to advertise themselves while getting others to think about the flaws of Christian apologetics. They studied up on an apologist who was coming to their school and turned all the bad arguments and logical fallacies into a bingo card, which they then handed out to people entering the talk. It made it easier to focus on the bad arguments instead of their good delivery, and the back of the card provided information on the student group itself. As I said: brilliant.
So I tweeted the article. Then this happened. (The Storify is here if the embed doesn’t work for you.)
My position is that “combat” is a standard word for what is done in situations like these, regardless of the source of bad arguments and information. Raven Madd’s position, as near as I can tell, is that the contextualized general should be made to stand in for the universal. I wonder where that goes on a bad-argument bingo card?