this is a crucial term I've coined — important because it describes something that doesn't have a term that I'm aware of, because people do this often, and because I keep coming back to it out of need to describe it.
epistemic stalling: you present objections that will be refuted given enough time and you are hoping time will elapse such that the objections are not refuted. this is similar to how people stall in other domains — when they don't feel like they can achieve success in any other way than running the clock.
here's a common claim where it's just a matter of time until some piece of information dismisses it: "you're just saying that because you're white."
ok, so what if I am not white?
"you're just saying that because you're a man"
and what if I am not a man?
"well, you're straight"
and what if I'm not straight? (I'm not, but for the purposes of this example I am.)
eventually, either I will hit the identity combo that you prefer, or some other person with the exact same opinion will hit the identity combo you prefer. it's implausible that no person of the ideal identity combination exists who holds that opinion. one will eventually be found. so, it's just a matter of time until you can't rely on these kinds of of objections.
that is epistemic stalling.
to prevent epistemic stalling, you should open with the objection you'd make assuming all of your stalls had already ran out — as if the person with your ideal identity combination already made the opinion.
epistemic stalling is like the putties in the Power Rangers TV show. (https://powerrangers.fandom.com/wiki/Putty_Patrollers).
putties were just low level clay footsoldiers that would inevitably get owned by the power rangers, until they fought the actual villain of that episode. putties never so much as left a mark, in any episode I ever recall seeing, and they'd fight off 10-20 of them. putties were physically stalling until the actual boss could arrive. your argument should open with the boss.
and if you have trouble with this analogy due to unfamiliarity, a similar analogy work with stormtroopers, the incompetence of which are a ubiquitous meme in pop culture.
read: the objection after I knock down all the rhetorical footsoldiers is the actual objection. that is what should be opened with. giving someone lots of weak objections in hope that they will just run out of time or resources to refute them is epistemic stalling. don't do this if you can help it.