I think a key area to expose IERA is to ask them to elaborate on the definitions they are using, I seen it done by Professer hoodbhoy against Hamza and it worked like a charm.
No, it isn't. You'll just be playing their game. They already have you suckered.
It's really simple. Stick to the basics.
As osmanthus put it, the whole argument fails on the first premise, as it is unsupported and can not be proven.
So why on earth would you want to bother with getting entangled in chasing their definitions of obscure shit?
Keep it clear. Keep it succinct. The argument fails on the first assertion. That is all you need. How they may or may not define anything after that point is not of any real interest.
Also, what Pepe said:
Do we really even need to go this deep into a debate with Muslims? How are any of these arguments unique to only Islam? A Christian or a Jew or even some new age deist could argue the same thing. Every time someone like Hamza tries to take the debate there we should bring it straight back to some of the nonsense Islam claims.
To me it seems they want to hide and move the debate into areas where specific beliefs and practices of Islam can't be attacked. I think it's a tactic and we need to bring the fight back and strike at their weaknesses.
Again, don't get tricked into chasing them through rabbit warrens of their own construction. Use a fucking axe.