a) going to the link
b) finding original source documents
Typically people sound one another out, looking for easily exploited chinks in the armour (logical flaws, "previously solved problems" or statements which allow the judger to dismiss the other as some particular species of crank from within the judger's worldview); failing this, invariably the dispute goes to larger-scale definitions or claimed consequences of (usually still-unstated) "axioms" of each side; and thence to the "real" base issues. Depending on how things are done, people either "agree to disagree" or wander off, shaking their head disrespectfully, or revert to Calvin and Hobbes mode:
Cheers!
Yes, you.
I also think you sound like this: Uck, uck, uck, uck. Ba goawk!
:-)
Very cute!
And your comments very appropriate. :=)