After a few years, I am not so sure that one can "debate" the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. Debate requires a willingness by the CTer to at least acknowledge the facts and relent on key points when debunked if the proper evidence is shown - something that Alex Jones style CT fans will never, ever do. Thus you aren't really debating them, you are just talking at them.
The typical CT method of "argument" is:
1) Argument by quotes. (Random unverifiable quotes by famous people that support their points - usually completely made up or taken out of context.)
2) Argument by popularity (Use of popular media stories saying that XXX number of people share their woo fringe belief, or that famous people believed in the conspiracy so it must be true.)
3) Argument ad hominem (Accusation of the skeptic as a disinformation agent, CIA agent, government shill, etc.)
4) Argument ad ignorantium (Appeal to "well, some conspiracies are historically proven, therefore all conspiracies must be real" OR "we can't know everything, therefore everything the government says cannot be true")
When you point out the type of fallacy they are using (since their entire line of argument always relies on these fallacies) they go to the next, after about four rounds they just ignore you and go back to step 1.
