To argue a point or position without facts and reason to support it simply acknowledges the existence of what one argues against.
Thanks for bringing this up. I am compiling a list of questions and one deals with irrational thinking and emotions versus knowledge. What I don't see but which is implied, is the force of experience. To me that one thing can make or break a discussion.
Not necessarily. It just demonstrates the debater hasn't thought through her/his aurgument.