If I am right, how should I answer or continue these conversations?
Why are you having the conversation in the first place?
In both cases you didn't provide any deep arguments. If you want to have a productive discussion it makes sense to argue on a deeper level.
What it means for the current strategy not to work isn't straightforward. You could call reducing the oil price a lot a current strategy that damages the finances of everyone in the area. It's a fairly recent move and it's effects aren't yet clear.
There's also a lot of fog of war.
Especially in the comments of political articles or about economic issues I find myself arguing with people who question my authority about a topic rather than refute my arguments.
----
Examples may be:
1:
Me: I think money printing by the Fed will cause inflation if they continue like this.
Random commenter: Are you an economist?
Me: I am not, but it's not relevant.
Random commenter: Ok, so you are clueless.
2:
Me: The current strategy to fight terror is not working because ISIS is growing.
Random commenter: What would you do to stop terrorism?
Me: I have an idea of what I would do, but it's not relevant because I'm not an expert, but do you think the current strategy is working?
Random commenter: So you don't know what you are talking about.
----
It is not about my opinions above, or even if I am right or not, I would gladly change my opinion after a debate, but I think that I am being disqualified unfairly.
If I am right, how should I answer or continue these conversations?