One of the superpowers you get as a scientist is the ability to be so specific on anything you say that nobody can say that you were wrong on the internet.
Instead of…
1) You’re wrong
2) See? I’m right!
3) This is…
4) This is proof
Try…
1) I am not convinced (for when you think they’re wrong but not sure)
The evidence is inconsistent with your hypothesis (for when they’re definitely wrong)
The evidence is being misrepresented (for when they’re just making stuff up but are being sneaky about it)
I cannot find a primary research article for your evidence (for when they’re making stuff up)
—-
2) This evidence supports my hypothesis (for when there are no other obvious explanations)
This is consistent with my hypothesis (for when other explanations exist)
—-
3) I think this is…. (for when you’re not citing sources or claiming authority on a subject)
—-
4) This is evidence (leave proofs for the realm of math)
I’m only half-joking when I say that you should incorporate these in your lexicon. Because if you do – you’ll end up sounding like an annoying, pedantic nerd (like me). But the nugget of actually useful info here is that when it comes to a high stakes disagreement, it really couldn’t hurt to think about arguments in a more precise manner.