How real people (aka non-cranks) debate science

In reading up for an upcoming post on the recent paper in Nature I came across a simple 4 point list showing how real people aka non-cranks/denialists/deniers debate scientific issues.

1. Not knowing everything is not a synonym for not knowing anything;
2. Listing things one doesn’t know in no way negates what you do know, especially when the examples are irrelevant;
3. If you want to demonstrate that the knowledge about something is inadequate or uncertain, then talk about that thing and provide facts and evidence;
4. Rambling on about irrelevant things is a tacit admission that you cannot demonstrate any problems with the actual subject, in which case why are you talking at all?

This should be obvious to pretty much everyone, but it serves as a useful way to differentiate between skeptics and deniers.