Quite the opposite actually. You pointed out an article that determined the cats that people perceived might be robots cats actually had a disease... which they obviously discovered by doing tests. My point is made. High five?
No, because nobody actually thought they might be robots, so they were not testing for the presence of robotics.
But we are drifting off topic. Your request for a high five is a good illustration of the kind of "point scoring" that I'm trying to get the forum away from. Topic drift is another thing I'd like to avoid.
I think as well as dissuading the debaters from their endless semantics, it would also be helpful to remind debunkers not the take the bait of following a breadcrumb trails of easily debunked claims into a labyrinth of irrelevance. I'm quite guilty of this myself.
See, we could easily keep arguing about if cats should be tested, and what cat test might mean. But that's not really advancing anything, is it? There was a fundamental point that you think debunkers are overly dismissive for broad theories after aspects of those theories are debunked, and I think that debunkers need to get more specific in order to communicate more effectively.
Perhaps, since your objection is likely to be a common one, debunkers should also make an effort to point out that they are not claiming that a claim being false proves a theory is false, but just that it proves the particular claim is false. Like:
"Maybe the government is spraying us, however, contrails have always persisted for hours when the weather conditions are right for that to happen (cold and humid aloft)".
"Maybe the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition, but there was no audio of explosions during the collapse, and the failure of a single upper level floor would lead to exactly the type of near free-fall collapse that was observed, and is observed during verinage demolitions."