To use your own analogy, if we were speaking about the edibility of fruit skins, you should probably avoid using overgeneralising statements such as "ALL fruit skins can be eaten if you just rinse them off."
And I don't. You go back and shove that word in later to make the false accusation.
Also, if the conversation involves fruit from other countries, you might want to consider the possibility that your knowledge may be less than comprehensive as to how fruit from third world countries need to be treated before they can be safely consumed.
But we aren't, so it's not relevant to the context, and it's a false criticism of my statement, which was specifically about a domestic fruit basket, not to mention that we we'rent talking about the need to wash them before eating, just about whether the sin itself is safe to eat. So again, it's a criticism on false premises that doesn't actually contradict me, but rather injects a secondary concern that I was not talking about and then pretends that I was taking a position on that tangential topic.
It's true that if those things were in context, then they would be things to address, but again, you're bringing things that are _out of context_ and shifting teh focus of the discussion away from the point that I made and toward those out of context criticisms that _completely miss the point_.
That may be a useful technique in a formal debate or perhaps a trial when you're trying to discredit someone on a technicality and score technical points instead of trying to take them on head on on substance, but it's a poor tactic to bring to the table in a general discussion that's supposed to be on equal terms.
