So just now on twitter.

[Alex K]

You can obviously say whatever you want as long as it isn't illegal. If your goal was to refute the claim, however, you have clearly failed due to your demeanor, and no amount of post hoc justification will change that.

Here we go again. No, this kind of crap is what I hate about the well intended left. You cant have it both ways. It is not only legal, offending someone who is being a dick is the correct response.

What do you mean, correct? There is not correct or incorrect response, there are only responses which are suitable for different means. Giving an aggressive response in reaction to slander may be a justifiable response, but the irony that you sort of confirmed the slander by giving an aggressive response rather than showing it false does not completely elude you, does it?

[mlmooney89]

Even in a heated debate where the person is rude, stupid, and wrong I try to keep name calling out because it lowers you to their level. I think you were right to reply back with something but maybe less 13 year old speech and more adult debate. It throws them off and proves your point over theirs

[dyresand]

Well you could have said sure some atheists leaders did horrible things.. but religious people are even worse than they are.

If they had said "This individual is violent", that would be ok. But that is not what they did. This point you just made here is why you cant put up with it. It allows people to ignore their own transgressions.

Right.