Winston Wu writes a very detailed article Debunking (30) Common Skeptical Arguments Against  Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena

This is a well-known article, deserves detailed study.

Paul  Sandoval  writes an 84 page response to William Wu  

Prof Richard Cocks  comments:
Wu does make some mistakes, but so does his attacker. Neither of them are aware, for instance, that attacks on character are perfectly appropriate when someone is offering testimony rather than arguing. Of course, these attacks must be substantiated and based on evidence. You can't just say - 'they must be a crazy liar.' If you have evidence that someone is dishonest, or insane, then produce it - it is relevant to testimony. I'm not really impressed with either side of the argument. It looks like the skeptic found a logic textbook and is hamfistedly trying to apply it. Wu does make claims while offering no evidence e.g., what the AMA says, but the skeptic's understanding of what constitutes a fallacy is very imperfect and then his claims that a fallacy has been committed are often not supported by his arguments. He asserts a fallacy has been committed, ironically without always providing the evidence for his assertion. It reads like a freshman student trying to use the logic text his professor used in class.