Debate Killers: How Theists Avoid Honest Debate

This morning I ran across a great article at atheism.about.com. It outlines many different ways in which theists, when presented with the opportunity to have a rational discussion with atheists regarding the question of God, instead insist on approaches that effectively end the debate before it even begins. Below is a quick summary of the "Debate Killer" tactics often employed by theists:

Presume to Instruct Us that We're "Really" Agnostics, Not Atheists

Presume to Preach and Proselytize, As If We Needed It

Commit Obvious and Egregious Logical Fallacies

Try to "Prove" Something By Quoting the Bible

Threaten Us With Damnation or Say Atheism is a "Bad Bet"

Pretend that You Don't Have the Burden of Proof

Cut & Paste Arguments From Others That You Can't Defend

Ignore What We Say and Pretend that We Didn't Just Object to that Argument

Offer That Same Argument Again That We've Refuted a Million Times

Announce That You'll Be Praying for Us

(Details of each tactic can be found in the original article.)

Now Austin Cline, the author of the above referenced article, takes the tack that these tactics are "errors", and states that "These errors can be avoided if theists know about them in advance and care.".

Apparently, Austin has never attempted to debate with Ray Comfort.

Ray, as well as his more prolific sycophants, know full well what they are doing when they employ these tactics. It's not an "error" on their part at all...it's a concerted effort to divert the dialogue away from rationality - where they know they are weak - and into an area where their "arguments" are unassailable, because such quaint notions as "logic" simply don't apply.

In short, while some theists may indeed employ these tactics erroneously, believing they are legitimate dialectic strategies, many of them employ them knowing full well that they are illegitimate and will only derail honest debate...and do so with precisely that end in mind.

Where is the Disconnect?

As a human who would like to be as open-minded and skeptical as I can be, I have a question to ask y'all here.

I've been following this comment thread for a few reasons:

1. I linked everyone there because this is my friend's blog
   
2. I am interested in what people have to say about it
   
3. I know who anonymous (a.k.a. "skippy) is.
   

There are also others arguing with a certain person there and I tried to take a step back and I am still a bit - let's say - frustrated with the way the arguments are going.

Here's the thing: as a deconverted xian and someone who must embrace logic and proof as a skeptic, where is the disconnect in these arguments? I assume it's a disconnect because I see it as someone who does not want to answer any question but wants to use  - for the lack of a better word - slippery language to evade offering proof for the existence of a god. I could be wrong, which is why I am writing this.

And I biased? Yes, a bit. But who isn't going into these kinds of arguments? So taking that into consideration, and to argue and debate fairly, let's all pick up these debates and look at them from all sides and give feedback. 

Can we civilly, and rationally critique these ongoing arguments? I am looking to better myself in how I defend or present my current belief (or lack of belief) and perhaps this could be a help for the newer folks here wishing to learn something and not necessarily bash Ray Comfort (although that is also a lot of fun).

Ray is a boob. See? It's fun!

Thanks to everyone for their time.