The legal requirement for admissible evidence.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_402
The steps of the scientific method.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_m...
Scientific evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
Independent verification.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/24836/independent-verification-and...
Push poll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
https://tytnetwork.com/2016/02/18/why-push-polling-is-dangerous/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/upshot/push-polls-defined.html?_r=0

I bring the forum this information, not because I think that the members don't understand them, but because the many people that come here don't understand them or more to the point fail to use them.
Many people come here with an agenda. They come to prove an argument, usually against the disbelief of their christian god. Most if not all of them propose some sort of evidence in their argument, usually in a YouTube video. This evidence NEVER meets even the minimal requirement for real evidence or fact.
It fails:
1) The legal requirement for admissible evidence.
2) Logic based on conclusions derived from the scientific method.
3) Validation by independent verification.
Their evidence is usually based purely on opinion or supposition. It also includes hearsay evidence that cannot and is not verified. Often they use biblical scripture which we know is not valid and why. This is called proselytizing. Other forms of intellectual dishonesty are unrelated scenarios, false examples, and "moving the goal posts" (changing the scope and or the parameters).
And still another form of dishonesty are:
4) Push Polls.
Recently we have had a few new very young christians decidedly undereducated and inexperienced that pose issues based solely on propaganda they have been fed.
I supplied these reference not to demean the people that want to propose that their god is valid, but as tools to educate them. How many times have we been asked: "what evidence do we need to believe in their god"? They don't understand that it isn't just the evidence that they bring but also how that evidence is acquired. They don't understand the necessary steps for logic. So I have provided them.
recently a person I was arguing with was upset that I didn't accept his YouTube video. His counter argument was that the creator of the video was a PH. D. He didn't understand that the man's credentials didn't actually validate the evidence. That the doctor's opinion carried weight but not to the point that it validated false evidence and flawed logic.
So when debating these people if you run into this sort of thing here are a few tools you can offer them to help THEM with their argument. Chances and probabilities are they will ignore them, but at least we shall have tried.