Naturally, falsificationism is the cheapest and lousiest debating technique there is. You just have to assert some outrageous, unjustified position. Call it a conjecture and claim that it must be true unless your opponent can knock it down.

And your opponent can't use the same trick because you got in first.

It's a stupid and lousy way of arguing. But what else is there?

As used when I make unfounded assertions in RSS/DebateWithOli about the relative popularity of RSS 0.92 and RSS 1.0

Actually, it's almost the worst. RelativismAsMutuallyAssuredDestruction is worse.