Have you ever tried to debate Christians that have no clue?

[Anymouse]

@Anymouse- Person X believes christians don't have a clue
It can be demonstrated that I claim to be a Christian and have a clue
Person X is false in his assertion about all Christians

Could you show me how that is illogical (not false.. I'm aware it's confusing definiitions... it's intentional)

This would be the fallacy of incomplete comparison, that is, not enough information is provided. have a clue is undefined.

It is also an example of the Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. (I call this the Wingnut fallacy and they don't necessarily need to be in the media. Some Christians are Wingnuts, and don't have a clue, therefore all Christians must be Wingnuts. The fallacy is easy to see if you substitute another class in the sentence: Some atheists don't have a clue, some Canadians don't have a clue, some Tea Partiers don't have a clue - actually the last is an untrue statement as I believe no Tea Partiers have a clue.)

And it is also a version of the ad hominen attack known as poisoning the well: presenting adverse information about a subject to discredit the holder of a position.

The first sentence is also an example of Association fallacy (guilt by association): arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.

The best way to debunk a fallacious statement is to present evidence which disproves the position. In the case of "All crows are black," one only need present one crow which is not black. In the case of "Christians don't have a clue," after defining what "have a clue" actually means, present one who does.

Could be more, those are the first fallacies that come to mind.
James.