we already had that, with the so-called "gish gallop"; this is, however, a way to automate bad-faith horseshit at scale.
this requires new patterns by those of us trying to uphold reality; reactionary argumentation doesn't work when the other side is able to out-scale your ability to respond.
I've found that taking control of the conversation by saying their arguments are based on faulty premises and reaffirming some aspect of reality that undermines their class of arguments is reasonably successful.