If you're having a good faith discussion/argument? Well, it depends..
People with complicated ideas tend to get upset when you do that. Recently the socratic method was called a misinformation tactic in the media, to serve as an example of this.
Presumably because they don't actually understand their 'ideas' themselves and not so much because they are complicated (I don't agree that most complicated ideas are nonsense it's just that it's rarely possible to discuss them without splitting them up/narrowing down to specific aspects. So chances are that a person who proposes one is incapable of doing either of those things so we end up with nonsense). But yeah that's a definitely a good approach
Any argument about US constitution that isn't just a literal reading of the text is complicated.
Ask Hawking about string theory and he can answer your question.
Ask a judge why civil asset forfeiture is constitutional and after a while he will refuse to talk to you anymore and insist that your uneducated mind can not possibly comprehend this complexity that he is unable to articulate or defend.
Of course it depends on the discussion and the topic but actual problems (which are worth discussion) almost never have simple or straightforward answer.