I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm saying that basing one's arguements on fallacious statements and uncorroborated statistics makes the arguement mute. It's not worth debating because if one argues against such statements and statistics, one validates those statements as possibly valid.

It's like saying "animals like being outside because the sky is green." If I say no, they don't, I'm validating a component of the statement "the sky is green." Later, the proponent will probably use this fact to close or prove their arguement.

This example may be a bit over the top, but that's what I see going on in cb's positioning. It's an unfair debating technique.