Setting one idea against another would not lead to a convincing outcome. One has to use historical experience too as part of the argument. Even then you wouldn't get a "mathematical" proof of correctness, but people may become convinced "beyond reasonable doubt". And it is easy to refute all of Yaalon's claims, based on history. 1. Avraham Stern concluded that the Nazis were less of an enemy than the British (Mandatory power), so he offered to collaborate with them. Crazy, and it shows that "extreme nationalism" has some boundaries. 2. Same lesson from Begin declaring his "revolt" against the British in Feb 2004, during WWII and before D-Day. Even a child will understand that this shows bottomless political idiocy, as it would have deprived the Yishuv of a seat at the table of victors and claim a state (which the US supported). 3. Yaalon himself degraded the ability of the Army, which came to light a year after his departure in the Second Lebanon War. Occupation duties were more important to him than training. Yaalon happens to be a political "idiot" and will come up with bad ideological arguments. Easy to defeat the man in his inept game.
Reformists are in the lead in Iranian parliamentary elections (dpa)