No, I don't think you understand what I am telling you. There are any number of strategies at 'never losing' an argument, as long as your opponent entertains you. You use quite a few of them. Just a few:

• Winnow issues down into issues of interpretation. IE: present an interpretation on the smallest level that is implausible on the macro level, and argue over that interpretation. Since its interpretation, and since the argument excludes reference to the larger contexts, you can never be proven wrong. IE: Argue about a particular frame of a movie showing Sasquatch walking, but refuse to put in in the context that the people who made the move acknowledged years ago that the movie was a hoax.
• Alter your premises or conclusion: 'Well, this is just wrote practice, See, CLINTON did it too!' Oh, he didn;t? Well, you can't PROVE there was a discussion between X and Y.... oh, you can? Well, you can't PROVE that Z was fired as a result of the discussion between X and Y... etc
• shift the discussion from discussing the facts of the matter, to discussing someone elses sins (Reno and Rostenkowski)
• Related, make it a moral argument, related to values and not fact: Well, maybe they did do it, but its not immoral/not done for immoral reasons
• Make it about something else: 'Well, I caught So-and-so lying! Man what an ass he is. Don't you all think he is an ass? Well, if you don't think he is an ass, then you guys are just gulping down this BS like its an all you can eat lobster buffet.Seriously, you libs are a gullible set of wussies...'

In the course of arguing over this topic, you have performed every single one of these techniques. So much so, that what you are arguing now is completely different to what you were arguing when this discussion began. In order to be right, you just can't not lose (Se also: the possibility of proving the negative case). You have to win. And to Win, you have to chose an argument- set of premises and conclusion, and stick with it. Not pepper us with excuses, or the misdeeds of others, not huff and puff and change your argument, not split the semantic hairs and then demand that we give you new hairs to split.

Yeti