You don't get to change your opponent's viewpoint in an Internet debate like the SAQ. Any more than you get to change the expression on an Easter Island monolith. Even with the best winning argument, you generally just succeed in either further entrenching your opponents or making them run away.
However, you can occasionally take pieces off the board.
The Oxfordians' #1 whine and complaint is that those who debate them, don't address their arguments but descend to ad hominem tactics. What they mean by this is not what Socrates and Schopenhauer mean by the term. They mean playground name calling. When they make a stupid argument, if you call it 'stupid' you are making, in their eyes, an ad hominem attack. They are, of course, entirely unaware that they spend the majority of their time making real ad hominem attacks against those who contradict their nonsense. You are moe likely to see open eyes carved on a Moai than on an Oxfordian.
Well that piece can now be taken off the board and take its place in the box alongside Stritmatter's discerment capabilities and Roe's sycamore trees.
In their latest spiteful retaliation to defeat in a public forum…