It is designed to be resistant to attacks by a defier.There arguments are difficult to avoid because they have a lot of overlap with legitimate debate techniques.

A person using an iron man argument will most likely make their own viewpoint so vague that nothing anyone says about it can weaken it. They’ll use jargon and imprecise terms. This means they can claim anyone who disagrees didn’t understand them, or they’ll rephrase their argument multiple times.

• They are harmful to everyone involved in a debate: they don’t get us anywhere because we’re not tackling an opponent’s actual viewpoint. This means we have no hope of convincing them.
• It’s not easy to admit we’re wrong about anything or to have to change our minds. But this is crucial if we want to get smarter and see the world as it is, not as we want it to be.

• We have to accept it’s something we’re all vulnerable to: it’s easy to look at other people we know that use logical fallacies. It’s much harder to recognize them in ourselves.
• Bad arguments are almost unavoidable if we haven’t taken the time to research both sides of the debate. We have to research the opposite side and understand that our perception of an opinion is not that opinion.

• Re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
• List any points of agreement.
• Mention anything you have learned from your target.
• Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

The first thing you can do you is to point it out. Explain why that isn’t helpful.

If this is not working, repeat your original point and make no attempt to defend the bad argument. The debate should probably not continue when your opponent proves unwilling to recognize their use of a bad argument.