Let's categorize how the left dodges debates. Poisoning the Well: "the idea of creeping sharia, which is an obviously false conspiracy theory that comes purely from a place of misinformed xenophobia, and everyone who knows anything about Islam will dismiss the notion as blatantly absurd" - The person who says this doesn't know what the expert opinions are on the subject, this is why she will never cite who her sources are, the consensus is the opposite, and the conspiracy theory turned out to be truer than even the theorists themselves had expected it to be. The person who makes these claims is being dishonest, they present themselves as having a basis for dismissal, but they in fact do not, they simply want to manipulate the audience into assuming the claim is false so that the presenter is spared from having to engage with supporters of some idea that she finds offensive (because it conflicts with her worldview and renders serious problems for her political ideas that need to be overcome). - The point of well poisoning is to color people's perception of a claim as being false from the get go as a means of avoiding the obligation to address it, it's an "a priori" rejection of the claim that assumes the conclusion before any analysis can be done, and then the whole task of doing any analysis at all is usually completely neglected without mention. - This is done in it's most common form by making some unsubstantiated appeal to authority and/or majority, it doesn't matter if the experts come out in favor of something, it's the reasons they give for their support which matters, the same can be said about the number of people who support a claim, the reasons they have for this is the only thing that matters. Appealing to audience stereotype of the opposition: - the concept is simple, just characterize your opposition as being unable to have their minds changed, you are right, but wont even try to argue your points because the opposition is too stubborn, stupid, or whatever to make doing such a thing worthwhile. - The fallacy is that they are simply claiming victory without a battle on the basis of their preconceptions of the opponents, this isn't an argument for their position, it's a cop out from having to argue it. - It also makes some serious false assumptions on the reasons people engage with conflicting ideas, something like a debate is usually not held for the sake of converting one's opponent to your position, but to show off how well justified your position is compared with that of your opponent, you engage with other ideas for the sake of the third party in the audience who is wanting to see what each side of a debate has to say on the matter. the point is to display that your side has the best arguments or information, and that the other side does not, by refusing on the grounds you cannot change the mind of someone who is obligated to make the best case for their position, even after they've changed their minds mid-way, you are ling to your audience about the intended purpose of engaging with opposing views, this is just a roundabout way to say "I know my stuff, but I won't give you any reason to believe that, you just have to trust me on this", without actually saying something that is so obviously shady as "just trust me" to your audience.