Ergasiophobic wrote: If I say that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea you can't say i'm wrong simply because I have not suggested the invention of a hang glider.
A more realistic situation might be "we need to move forward as we cannot stop [presented as axiomatic truth] so you need to provide an alternative for the necessary jump ahead". In that instance, providing no solution for the coming abyss is indeed not
helpful. But underneath this is the given axiom of the position "we are moving forward" and "there's a cliff on the path". The proper criticism would then be to require some evidence on those two positions, do they
necessarily hold? Perhaps this is another version of the
argument from ignorance. Of course "jumping of a cliff is dangerous" is also something that might be in need of evidence [is it always true?] unless it's taken as a given without a need to qualify.
A statement like "its a bad idea" has little content but functions here as a warning to reevaluate the whole situation. But warning signs are not in themselves arguments or positions. Wrong or right. That said, it's always very hard to prove a "wrong". Like proving there's
no pink unicorn on Mars. In terms of proof we need positive theory first. You don't win because you prove everyone else wrong but because there's sufficient evidence that you are right, evidence which allows to be challenged and cannot be overturned. Of course anyone else can propose something different with even more evidence which need to be falsifiable, that is, there must be a method to measure its coherence and factuality.
The proper thing here would have been not the statement ""you have no solution" but "you have no alternative position". It's like evolution theory, to challenge it is one thing but to overturn will need another theory providing scientific explanations for all the stuff being found, their age, shapes and forms. Shooting a hole in the theory is not enough to win. It only would show the theory needs to improve a bit more.