I find it quite easy to understand these types of arguments, despite me being, "Bipolar, a Sociopath, ADD, ADHD, PTSD, and a stubbornly persistent genius." The only times when i am not able to follow people's ideas and beliefs in debates would be when they have the IQ of a shaved ape... Where as my IQ is 160, not as great as Albert Einstein's higher points, but is still good assuming that 115-125 is
considered way above the average of 90-100
Abstract arguments are discussions about a disputed premise, which we can't prove due to lack of evidence. A popular example is debating whether or not there is a deity who created the universe. People whose line of thought jumps like this: "somehow the universe started, and that somehow must have been a deity, and that deity must be God from the Bible" aren't doing so well. There's a gigantic gap between each statement, and those are where the abstract arguments are.
Well I guess I would interpret abstract arguments as conclusions or solutions to a disputed topic . For example achieving you viewpoint or out one by attacking the opposer not directly on subject but through another round about channel...? I could be way off so I'm interested to hear others interpretations.