Most of these I described in a lot more detail and with lots of examples in the 'Debating techniques' threads, but some of 'em I have not yet described elsewhere. In any case, a short summary may be in order.

1. Tangents
When you ask Stef a question (in a verbal debate), he has the habit of very briefly and unsatisfactorily responding to it and then going off on a tangent for two minutes possibly in the hope that neither his discussion partner nor the audience will return to his unsatisfactory answer to his question and instead reply to the last thing he said (the tangent).

2. Misrepresentation
Stef will misrepresent positions:

1. Create straw men and attack them
2. Say something like ‘but isn’t one plus one two?’ (in other words, put forward something that is both completely true and uncontroversial and completely irrelevant) so that there seems to be agreement when in fact there is not.

3. Cherry picking and ignoring questions & arguments
Very often Stef does not even try to create the impression that he has answered your questions and will just downright ignore them

4. Confusing quantity with quality
When you call Stef on his not having answered your questions he tends to say something like ‘I participated in several threads on this topic, did 3 podcasts and had 2 personal conversations with listeners so don’t tell me that I haven’t engaged in the debate.' He sure has engaged in debate but he has not actually addressed let alone answered your most important arguments.

5. Psychologizing
Stef wont address your arguments but instead try to steer the discussion toward your psychological state (that may account for your position in his eyes)

6. Ridiculing & Bullying
While psychologizing, when applied wrongly, is already a form of bullying, there is also more obvious bullying going on on the board, like when Stef makes fun of other posters.

7. Intimidation
When somebody sees through Stef's debating techniques and exposes them and keeps asking his original questions Stef knows that he is in trouble and then he may resort to pure (albeit non-violent) intimidation.

8. The Prioritization Fallacy
This technique has basically made Stef invulnerable to any form of criticism for the next gazillion years. Briefly put the technique is this: As long as there is bigger misery in the world than possibly morally wrong behaviour by Stef you cannot legitimately criticise Stef for it indicates irrational prioritization. He doesn’t say it this explicitly but it is the logical implication of what he says.

8. 'I'll do a video'
Confronted with lots of difficult questions and criticism that he does not want to respond to Stef will triumphantly and happily say something like 'Thanks for these questions. You just inspired me to do another video!' and then in the video he goes on to once again state his own position, attack some straw men but not actually address the difficult questions and arguments that were put to him. After that he resorts to technique #4

9. Confusing assertiveness with defensiveness
Stef will respond indignantly to certain questions or comments and say that they are insulting or ridiculous and therefore he will not respond. So he appears to act assertively whereas in fact often (though by no means always) he is acting in a defensive way, so as not to have to discuss the raised points.

10. Self-fulfilling prophesizing
Stef will be evasive and use all the other tricks above and then when you get annoyed or angry he will almost triumphantly say: well, the fact that you are getting so angry over this issue must mean you have some psychological issues that explain your strong feelings about it. (he may do this after he has banned you because you got angry), and so he once again is able to evade the actual questions.

visitors from FDR may be interested in learning about these debating techniques and apply them to the current responses on FDR to LiberatingMinds .