Disambiguating the charismatic debate

There's a good way and a bad way to argue against continuationism. Unfortunately, these are not consistently distinguished in popular debates:

The wrong way:

Point to examples of Pentecostals run amok. Point of Word of Faith hucksters. Point to YouTube clips of "holy barking," &c. 

Universalize from these examples to continuationism in toto.

That's a bad argument because it's logically fallacious. A classic inductive fallacy: a hasty generalization. 

Moreover, it's a double-edged sword. After all, atheists use that same type of argument to discredit Christianity en masse. 

The right way:

Demonstrate from Scripture that continuationism is false.

Point to examples of Pentecostals run amok to illustrate the consequences of a false starting-point. 

See the difference? In the first case you are using examples to establish a general principle.

In the second case, you first establish a general principle, then use examples to illustrate that principle. 

In the second case, the principle is grounded in arguments independent of the illustrations. 

In the first case, the principle is dependent on the examples.

In the second case, the examples are dependent on the principle.

In the second case, this is how the examples are related to the principle: because continuationism is false, so-called excesses and abuses are not isolated incidents. Rather, these are the inevitable, unavoidable consequences of a building on a false foundation. 

Hence, it's ultimately irrelevant to distinguish between reputable and disreputable charismatics, for reputable charismatics are reputable in spite of their theology, not because of their theology. Whether they represent the majority or minority of charismatics is a red herring. 

One final clarification: what I've said doesn't mean the good way is a good argument. It may be a bad argument. But it's a good way to mount the argument. That's the proper way to frame your objection.

Your objection may still be bad, but that's the kind of argument we should engage. 

That would shift the argument to a primarily exegetical argument.

That can also be supplemented by a historical argument, for cessationism and continuationism both have broadly predictable real-world consequences.