I disagree. Conclusions require propositions to draw an inference. If I say “the moon is made of cheese”. That is a conclusion that can’t be supported on its fa

I disagree. Conclusions require propositions to draw an inference. If I say “the moon is made of cheese”. That is a conclusion that can’t be supported on its face and lacks any propositions to evaluate the reasonableness of the statement. If I say the “moon appears to melt in a manner similar to cheese on earth, so it must be made of cheese” that proposition can be evaluated to determine to what extent it supports the conclusion. Asking for support of a conclusion or questioning whether a proposition actually supports an inference is totally legitimate in a debate. Attacking one proposition while ignoring others, pretending that a proposition that clearly supports a conclusion doesn’t; those are invalid. I agree you can often tell when someone is being ridiculous and adding noise (I like that phrase in this context) or trying to prove a preconceived argument rather than being open to changing in the face of evidence.