zlacker

The problem here is that you're still required to engage with some amount of the nonsense, otherwise you're very likely debating in bad faith. And it will absolutely look like bad faith to any onlookers.

The common rejoinder to your reply will be hammering the fact that they provided sources that you didn't even examine by way of appealing to meta-argument, and they'd be right. This tactic ranks roughly at the same level as "responding to tone" on PG's hierarchy of disagreement.

Better would be picking one or two of the more pertinent sources and demonstrating their faults. This has the benefit of casting doubt on the rest of the list. If you can find a citation loop, even better.