Depending on what opinion they pull out, I might tweak that and suggest: "What's the argument against that opinion?"
From what I've seen, a lot of people can rattle off reasons they've heard for why a particular thing is done, but have not deeply considered the opposite side of that opinion and what its benefits may be. Ymmv.
Learning other people's perspectives helps broaden your own, and if you don't agree then formulating a counter-argument helps consolidate and crystalize your position.
Blanket dismissal based on character and assumptions about qualifications does not let you do this. But then again, you could just skip it. Not sure why you didn't decide to do that.
It can be powerful just to say something like: "I don't agree with that"
Direct refutation of what they have said suggests that you are open to discussion in light of further evidence, and invites people to find new arguments; whereas, saying that you fundamentally disagree makes your position much clearer.
I try to provide some amount of reason, mostly just so if someone on the fence reads they can at least see some amount of argument against a bad idea, but the originator of the bad idea is only going to double down on their take.
How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"?
or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!)
These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will seem to change their mind a little bit. But a couple months later they are right back to their old thinking. Maybe people tend to forget the stuff they would rather not believe.
That does work to educate you, but has the side effect of distorting the discussion here. For instance, I'll see a bunch of comments recommending a particular approach for writing software. I might come away thinking most of HN approves of that approach, and so there must be something to it. But what if all those comments are just people trying out the idea, in hopes that other people will tear it apart?
I don't think there's anything wrong with qualifying your opinions. You can still get people to challenge you on them. Isn't that why people start their sentences with "for sake of argument" or "playing devils advocate"?
The question, "What evidence would change your mind?" is perfectly reasonable.
It's a proxy for "Does your response to this topic involve trapped-priors?" Most people aren't willing to reveal or acknowledge they have trapped-priors and so it jumps to the end of the conversation where they simply leave. It's saves my time discussing topics by avoiding interactions with close-minded people.
Assuming a good-faith discussion, I tend to ask people "can you tell me why it is important to you that X is true?" (or false, or whatever) these days. Of course I should also be open about why a particular view is important to me in those situations. It seems to be the most effective way maintaining a productive conversation when disagreeing on things, regardless of whether we'll agree in the end.
Personally, I'd prefer if you'd write a comment and explain why the argument is totally wrong. (And preferably starting with praising what you approve of; that would give the right tone to any answers you get.)
Edit: On consideration, I should have followed my own advice and started this with: "A well reasoned, well written and interesting argument. But why aren't you adding the alternative of ANSWERING the argument instead of just moderating?!"
Actually I use it frequently. Usually I follow the script:
1) Hear someone saying something I agree with.
2) Walk there and ask: "Well, have you considered..." and present a counter-argument I think is reasonably strong.
3) Listen and learn objections, sometimes asking for clarifications, pointing weaknesses or going back to 2 until I'm convinced position is consistent or the person doesn't know what is talking about.
4) I say: "Thanks, I now understand your point. I actually didn't know or had not thought about it."
The problem is that sometimes I lose a friend between steps 2 and 3.
If you read what they proposed and disagreed with it, then don't ask "What do you propose?" - Argue/debate why you think their proposal, which you read, is not useful.
Try to rephrase their question to them to ensure you understand it.
I think I've heard Scott Adams describe the practice on a podcast, the first step to understanding your opponent is to ask them to summarize what they think you both disagree on.
With a new recruit, this is the fastest way to nightmare discussions. He always emphasizes the cons of my proposals, and never admit that his proposals also have cons. To be honest, I really think he believes what he says, he seems to not see ahead of time where the blocking points will be.
I am now forced to only submit the pros, and prepare an argument for the cons, which is rarely needed. This is not a way to have good technical decisions.
From what I've seen, a lot of people can rattle off reasons they've heard for why a particular thing is done, but have not deeply considered the opposite side of that opinion and what its benefits may be. Ymmv.
reply