You're not wrong per se, but when you say "it's not real" its trivially simple to shut you down, diluting everything you want to say, and all evidence you want to present.
If you start with, "it's been overblown" then you can't be refuted out of the gate. Each piece of evidence can support or not support that statement on its own merits and the argument still remains strong.
In the first case, it only takes ONE piece of evidence to fall apart to destroy the statement. In the second case EVERY piece of evidence must be refuted.
You're not wrong per se, but when you say "it's not real" its trivially simple to shut you down, diluting everything you want to say, and all evidence you want to present.
If you start with, "it's been overblown" then you can't be refuted out of the gate. Each piece of evidence can support or not support that statement on its own merits and the argument still remains strong.
In the first case, it only takes ONE piece of evidence to fall apart to destroy the statement. In the second case EVERY piece of evidence must be refuted.
Bottom line, pick the right hill to stand on.